Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive260

User:Alifazal reported by User:AcidSnow (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: Preferred Version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revision as of 01:52, 7 October 2014
2. Revision as of 01:59, 7 October 2014
3. Revision as of 02:04, 7 October 2014
4. Revision as of 15:18, 19 October 2014
5. Revision as of 15:51, 19 October 2014
6. Revision as of 16:05, 19 October 2014
7. Latest revision as of 16:20, 19 October 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Talk Page

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

Comments:

User has failed to receive consensus and has chosen instead to violate 3RR so he could add a Monument. Despite presenting no evidence he has accused me of having a "Conflict of interest"; which he attempted to "resolve" at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. Despite being able to easily solve it at the talk page, he choose to go there instead. It, however, was quickly rejected by an admin who stated:

"This is not the board to come to because you're not happy with having your edits reverted. This is a board to come to when you have actual evidence of a conflict of interest problem. You have none. Please take discussion of content to the Talk page of the article."

He too has accused me of presenting no explanations as to why I removed the image despite the fact that I had already given him two reasons.

The most shocking thing about his edit waring is the fact that this is the same issue that got him blocked for two weeks due to a failed attempt at accusing me of being a sock of Middayexpress and vise versa, just so he could avoid receiving consensus once again. Instead of complying with his block he choose to continue socking; which again has got him blocked for another week. AcidSnow (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

To what AcidSnow writes above I'd like to point out that this user Alifazal actually pretended to be a separatist from Somaliland through his now blocked "User:No More Mogadishu" sock account. Besides the telling username (Mogadishu is the capital of Somalia and he claimed to want "no more" of it) he added a big flag of Somaliland to his userpage with the caption that "We greet you with the memory of the heroes who sacrificed their lives For the nationhood of Somaliland" [1]. If that wasn't enough, he also rather bizarrely added two infoboxes reading "this user comes from Somaliland" and "this user recognizes the independence of Somaliland" to the userpage of one User:Theyuusuf143. Theyuusuf143 was at the time causing disruption before he was eventually blocked [2]. Unlike Alifazal/No More Mogadishu, however, Theyusufabdi is actually from the Somaliland region. Middayexpress (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

As Middayexpress pointed out, a one week block seems pretty odd after what he has been doing, Bbb23. Nonetheless, I thank you for your assistance. AcidSnow (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Bobi987 Ivanov reported by User:Laveol (Result:blocked 1 week)

Page: Yane Sandanski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Bobi987 Ivanov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [3]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [4]
2. [5]
3. [6]
4. [7]
5. [8]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on the user's own talk page: [10]

Comments:
I've laid out my concerns over the editor's behaviour at the incidents noticeboard. Since that report, he has been engaged in a fierce edit war on a number of articles (the most blatant example is Yane Sandanski, but there are others, such as Todor Panitsa, Boris Sarafov). Initially, I tried to contact him via the talkpage, since he was guaranteed to see it there. Later, I found out he was actually an experienced editor who was well aware of his actions. I also get the impression he is bringing his personal feud with another editor from mk.wiki to en.wiki.--Laveol ^T 11:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I just add some more useful info., and provide the sources. That's all. I never delete anything, unlike others. Bobi987 Ivanov (talk) 11:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You've been adding info directly from blogs, misinterpreted and misquoted a number of sources, and you've cluttered articles with unnecessary (mis)quotes. However, this is not the topic of discussion here. The question is why you continued to revert and revert, and doing it without a proper justification. You were warned that you needed to calm down. --Laveol ^T 11:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Even if one has got impeccable sources, this is no reason to edit-war. Here's a summary of five reverts on Boris Sarafov:

1. [11]
2. [12]
3. [13]
4. [14]
5. [15].

At this rate (5 reverts/ 7 hours) you would break even a 15RR, if there were one. Also, you ignored my comments on the talk page. This is not the way to go. Tropcho (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Berean! Just so you guys know, it seems that this IP Special:Contributions/79.126.250.162 is picking up Bobi987's cause. Tropcho (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I've increased his block time to 1 week for evasion and semi-protected a couple of articles. His IP address is hardblocked one week as well.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks! Tropcho (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It appears that the user is back under Special:Contributions/79.126.186.106 as well as Special:Contributions/85.30.109.189. On Talk:Boris_Sarafov he doesn't conceal that he's the user who made the earlier edits (he referred [16] to the earlier edits he made as his own and he copied comments he made earlier on his talk page [17]). That it's the same user is also suggested by the fact that the two IPs are editing the same five pages Bobi987 was editing before the block (except the two with protection, Boris Sarafov and Todor Panitsa). Tropcho (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Isuruwe reported by User:RGloucester (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page

Ayn al-Arab (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 630398287 by RGloucester (talk)"
2. 16:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 630230975 by 97.117.187.212 (talk)"
3. 12:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 630205827 by Dekimasu (talk)"
4. 17:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 629864604 by Dekimasu (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user continually attempts to create a fork of Kobanê. That article was moved from the title Ayn al-Arab a few days ago, as part of a requested move discussion. The user did not agree with the move, and has since been edit-warring to establish a fork of the Kobane article. This article is under strict WP:1RR in line with WP:GS/SCW&ISIL, which he has clearly violated. RGloucester — ☎ 17:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Already blocked Nick (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

But after the block of Isuruwe, an IP,103.21.166.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), has rolled up with the same edit, so the article looks as if it needs semi-protection. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I've semiprotected Ayn al-Arab for two months due to the IP activity. EdJohnston (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

IP blocked for a year as well--Ymblanter (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Factchecker atyourservice reported by User:Cwobeel (Result: Blocks, Warnings)

Page: Alison Lundergan Grimes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Factchecker atyourservice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [18]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [19] 1st revert, restoring content that was widely discussed in talk - no attempt to join in the discussion

1. [20] Reverted edit by me

1. [21] Reverted edit by Binksternet

1. [22] Reverted edit by MelanieN

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24], Talk:Alison_Lundergan_Grimes#Massive_content_deletion

Comments:

• After he breached 3RR, I suggested to he self-reverts and engages in discussion, but he declined [25] - Cwobeel (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep, it's edit-warring all right. My only defenses are (1) that they were already edit warring to keep the content out, before I showed up at this article, and (2) the material is clearly well-sourced and very relevant to the article subject's notability. Nobody has made a cogent case for excluding the material, but everybody seems real enthusiastic about removing it.

As for the material having been "widely discussed in talk", I did see a talk page section, but it seemed to revolve entirely around 3RR threats against CFredkin and accusations that he was a paid editor. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

That section contains a substantial discussion which you chose to ignore (Talk:Alison_Lundergan_Grimes#Massive_content_deletion0. CFredkin reverted five times on that article, and was blocked for a week. I have no idea why you would want to follow in his footsteps. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

That was the precise discussion section I was referring to that revolved around making accusations against Fred and getting him blocked, seemingly for nothing more than reverting your inappropriate edits. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a plain 3RR violation, and in his comment above Factchecker does not admit to anything wrong. In my opinion a block of at least four days would be justified based on the block history. Factchecker might avoid a block if they will agree not to edit this article or its talk page for the remainder of 2014. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not think this is a legitimate demand and thus I cannot acquiesce to it; sorry. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the penalty for lack of remorse comes after the conviction, Ed. Before that, it's called "defending yourself". ‑‑Mandruss (t) 16:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Haha, a ringing endorsement! Jaykay, jaykay, thanks for that. But I will say in my defense that one of the two blocks that I have received in my Wiki-career resulted from 3RR violations against a tendentious editor who was later indef blocked for disruption. There were some very sincere expressions of sympathy, including from a friendly admin, though I don't think anyone argued that I was innocent... Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, Cwobeel was clearly also edit warring at the same time [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] for 5RR on 20 October 03:25 to 13:50 , and is fully as guilty of edit war here. Collect (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Not really. Check the history, these were my consecutive edits to explain the deletion of each sentence in edit summaries as a courtesy. Actually, I checked these diffs and these are not reverts. These were edits. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Every single one of the five was a "revert" under the Wikipedia definition -- you cannot reasonably assert that edits which did not precisely "revert" a prior edit are not reverts - every one of them made changes of substantial effect concerning edits made by others in the immediate past. To assert that "reverts are not reverts" is not an effective plea. And they were not "consecutive edits" as you appear to initially assert here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Collect: The admin closing this report has the history available to him/her to make a determination. My position is that I worked on the article yesterday late night and in collaboration with an other editor we added material and added sources. It is all in the history. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

RE Centrify/FC's claim that "Nobody has made a cogent case for excluding the material:" In fact I have twice made a substantive argument at talk for excluding the material.[31] [32] Nobody has addressed my comments; they just keep re-adding the material. --MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Those comments, which you did not even bother making til you had already reverted me two or three times, did not raise any policy issue and in fact suggested that you wished to inject your own political analysis into the article. And then there's the "isn't it convenient" personal attack. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Please get your facts straight. I reverted you once, then posted my comment at the talk page, then reverted you a second time. --MelanieN (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Fine, I can see that one of the deletions was not a revert. You still didn't cite any policy, just your unsourced WP-editor analysis that was contrary to the analysis given by the source, that fundamentally misstated the facts and looked like POV pushing. You also leapt right into unnecessary personal attacks. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I asked MelanieN at the article talk page to explain the personal attack(s), she's now moved those attacks to her own talk page, still not answering why she thinks they are necessary or from where she is getting an impression of wrong-doing. My guess is she thinks you and are in collusion. Truth is, I don't think you and I have ever interacted previously. I saw what was going on at the article and felt reverting the content out was wrong and unnecessary. That's all there is to it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

My, my, aren't we touchy! I make one sarcastic comment (which was here if anyone cares), and two people take it as a personal attack! The policy based reason for my argument is WP:UNDUE, not to mention WP:NEWS. We are not supposed to include every passing news item in an article, certainly not a BLP article. The point these two are so eager to include is a complaint filed by the opposing party, of the kind that is routinely made by both sides in any election. If the complaint achieves any lasting significance, followup reporting, action by the FEC, etc., then it should certainly be included. But to date it has not achieved any such significance. And it is certainly not significant enough to excuse Centrify/FC for their edit warring. --MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

"Touchy"? Not at all. But considering you've now posted personal attacks against me at the article talk page, your talk page, my talk page, and now here, I think you're trying to provoke me in that direction. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't you think that reverting three times in a row yourself in the last couple of hours, each revert against a different editor, while this report is still open is a pretty bad idea? - Cwobeel (talk)

• Result: User:Factchecker atyourservice and User:Cwobeel are each blocked four days. Both editors have previous blocks in 2014. User:MelanieN and User:Winkelvi are warned for edit warring. Further reverts by either of them may lead to a block, unless consensus has already been obtained. EdJohnston (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:, I respect and will honor this warning, but it is based on a false statement by Cwobeel. It's true that Winkelvi inserted the same material three times. It is not true that I reverted three times. I actually reverted twice, both times against FactChecker. I then not only stopped, but said at the talk page that I was not going to revert a third time.[33] --MelanieN (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually - looking at it again, I think that Cwobeel was actually talking to Winkelvi, not to me. In that case I am even more puzzled why I was included in the warning. --MelanieN (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

User:64.183.48.206, User:107.220.86.220 reported by User:Willondon (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: White Rabbit (song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User(s) being reported:
64.183.48.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
107.220.86.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is last calm, before the storm: [34]

In the article White Rabbit, between October 16, 14:56 and October 19, 11:12, there have been eight assertions and reverts, with one unrelated edit. Two IP editors have repeatedly made substantially the same assertion, and three other editors (including myself) have reverted it.

After "Notes", reverts show quotes from the edit summary.
None of the assertions contain anything in the edit summary.

First assertion by 64.183.48.206: [35]
First revert by Willondon: [36]; Notes: unsourced; original research?

Second assertion by 107.220.86.220: [37]
Second revert by Radiopathy: [38]

Third assertion by 107.220.86.220: [39]
Third revert by Willondon: [40]; Notes: unsourced material; original research? (wikilinks to WP:VER and WP:OR)

Fourth assertion by 64.183.48.206: [41]
Fourth revert by Radiopathy: [42]; Notes: unsourced; original research

Fifth assertion by 107.220.86.220: [43]
Fifth revert by Radiopathy: [44]; Notes: unsourced, original research (with wikilinks now)

Sixth assertion by 107.220.86.220: [45]
Sixth revert by Willondon: [46]; Notes: pls discuss on talk page before reasserting this edit

Seventh assertion by 107.220.86.220: [47]
Seventh revert by Hchc2009 [48]; Notes: As per Willonden, pls discuss on the talk page first

Eighth assertion by 107.220.86.220: [49]
Eighth revert by Radiopathy: [50]; Notes: unsourced and no discussion

Comments:

I'm not aware of any warnings (edit warring or 3RR) given to the IP editor(s). The recent edits and reverts have not been discussed on the talk page. As far as I know, the only communication is in the edit summaries, and through the fact that the assertion has been consistently reverted.

Recognizing that edit warring is independent of whether the edit is correct or not, I note that repeated assertions become more refined with a little expansion in later ones. Sure signs of original research, in my opinion.

Willondon (talk) 01:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

NB A warning notice was left yesterday, difference [51]. Hchc2009 (talk) 03:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected (semi) for two weeks. The truth of the matter is I'm too tired to figure out what really is going on here, so I'm taking the easy way out.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Three warnings about unsourced content. Radiopathy •talk• 00:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Luxey reported by User:Murry1975 (Result: Blocked)

Page: List of Irish Travellers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Luxey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [52]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [53]
2. [54]
3. [55]
4. [56] Didnt fully remove on first attemp
   1. [57] Completed above removal

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [58]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [59]

Comments:
Luxey is an SPA, who does not like that one of those one the list is not a good representative of the travelling/gypsy community and wishes to remove hin from the list. Murry1975 (talk) 11:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment. The reverts continue, here's another. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

User: Carlojoseph14 reported by User:112.198.82.96 (Result: Already semi-protected; stale)

Page: Loboc Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Carlojoseph14 (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. [60]
2. [61]
3. [62]
4. [63]
5. [64]
6. [65]
7. [66]
8. [67]
9. [68]
10. [69]
11. [70]
12. [71] – by a different user
13. [72] – from different user
14. [73]
15. [74]
16. [75]
17. [76] – protection applied solely to thwart my anonymous editing
18. [77] – edits by another user
19. [78]
20. [79] – edit by another user
21. [80]
22. [81]
23. [82]
24. [83]
25. [84]
26. [85]
27. [86] current

NB I edit anonymously, so all IPs starting 112.198.82 in this list are me.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [87]

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

Comments:

Editor continues to flout WP:CAPITALS WP:OVERLINK WP:ROC WP:EDITORIALIZING. I have directed him/her to WP:OWNERSHIP, wikipedia abbreviations and WP:WIP but I doubt s/he has read them, or considered their application. Messages to me are condescending and dictatorial, e.g. "Don't accuse behind anonymous IP addresses", as well as attempting to contravene WP:PRIVACY (– depends who "I" am).

112.198.82.96 (talk) 04:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Note. The article is already semi-protected by another admin, and the edit war is stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• The remaining issue is the WP:CAPITALS which was copyedited and resolved by another user. Granting the page semi-protected infers that the edit by the IP user is not good. I question that the accuser still use an IP address. I think he/she must be brave enough and edit using his username. The page was formatted similar to articles on churches in the Philippines. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 05:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit war is not stale, it's ongoing. It's paused on Loboc Church because of temporary page protection limiting my means of assertion. Arrogance continues unabated. User acknowledges flouting all the rules I quoted. NB user has been editing only since May this year. I have just started editing all Philippine church pages according to WP standards, not this user's own. 112.198.82.96 (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

My edits were supported by an edit of another user (diff here), which was reverted again. [Why use different IP address with your edits if you have your own username?] --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 08:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

As you can see, user continues to assert all manner of WP:OWNERSHIP and insists that WP:PRIVACY is not a matter to be considered either. Fact remains his edits are lacking in syntax and lexis, and do not follow any of the norms that Wikipedia requests. This issue is not resolved merely by page-protecting so I cannot apply anonymous edits. User needs to be told how Wikipedia works - it is not his/her personal playground. 112.198.77.39 (talk) 13:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not insisting that I own the article, I knew that once I posted it here, everyone owns it. I am not stating that because you are an IP user, your edits and comments must not be considered. All I am saying is, if you're proud and stand by your edits, use your own username. If my edits were not constructive, why did you revert the edits here? The article was patterned after another article I started, Maribojoc Church, which is currently in GA status. I'm serious with editing, I knew this is not a playground, that's why I always edit with my user logged in. I may not be new here, last May 2014, but I make it a point that I'm not only editing but I also contribute quality edits. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Quality edits? Pah! They display poor syntax and lexis, hardly surprising when they're copied from other sources without understanding what they say (V.Punta Cruz Watchtower). Stop banging on about anonymous editing, as though it's a sin. I'm not proud, I don't care about edit counts, barnstars, GA, all that nonsense. All I care about is to develop a page so that it can stand as a good example of encyclopaedic content, regardless of its subject. Start following the wikipedia guidelines, both regarding article content and style, and the way to treat other editors. I've already given you lots of pointers to them - about time you read them, and applied them. GA status is a joke! BTW I came past Loboc Church this morning and the big sign outside isn't fussed with inappropriate capitals. 122.53.28.42 (talk) 04:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Adjutor101 reported by User:Bladesmulti (Result: Blocked)

Page: Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Adjutor101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [88] - (Undid revision 630360726 by Dougweller (talk) Dougweller citing religous scholars, academic books, Quran,Hadith and Mirza's own writing does not constitute as dubious source.)
2. [89] - (Undid revision 630377456 by Bladesmulti (talk) Yes Quran quotes are used as Mirza criticism. Your point is ? Also why did you remove quotes from Mirza own book. Learn to be critical !)
3. [90] - (Undid revision 630398272 by Bladesmulti (talk) Learn to accept Criticism that is reference, even if it goes against your religious beliefs. I also replied.)
4. [91] - (Removed http://irshad.org/exposed.php Dawat-o-Irshad, url=http://alhafeez.org/rashid/nadwi.htm, http://www.inter-islam.org/faith/qadian.htm, changed "does not hold water", now only academic books, mirza books, Quran sources+hadeeth remain)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:[92]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Mirza_Ghulam_Ahmad#Finality_of_Prophethood.3F

Comments:

If you revert him, he will warn you to stop vandalizing.[93] [94] Bladesmulti (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. I might have shown the user more leniency as the warning came late in the game (as far as I could tell - he removes everything negative from his talk page), and I don't think his edit after the warning was a revert (unless it was restoring something that had been removed), but the use of the vandalism templates on the talk pages of editors who disagreed with him was over the top. Plus, he had reverted many times before the warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Just a note that the last edit was indeed a revert as it was restoring information that another editor had removed. That means that the user did in fact revert after the warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Spiritclaymore reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Blocked)

Page: Huns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Spiritclaymore (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. [95] - With copyvio on the last source, which was why he was reverted three more times yesterday (a half dozen reverts in the past 36 hours)
2. [96]
3. [97]
4. [98] - With the edit summary "Adding poor quality science and mot reliable just to be fair"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [99]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Huns#.22Mongoloid.22

Comments:

Ian.thomson (talk) 02:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

And Spiritclaymore seems to think that 12 hours is more than 24 hours. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

1) No one had replied me in the talk page of Huns and I've already waited for more than 24 hours after re-editing ----> ( my mistake is 12 hours, I waited and slept and woke up at night, Ian.thomson is absolutely correct ) . 2) Also I still do not understand why is an data being removed after it had been edited since 2014 April. Why was it able to last for almost 7 months if the moderators were doing their job, why didn't any moderator remove it until now? this leads anyone suspect that some people are biased against some certain data and wish it remove. 3) why are some edits I've been told to rephrase counts as being part of the edit war? I'm overall very suspicious. 4) The anthropology data on Huns by our Hungarian anthropologist and archeologist should at least be mentioned while stating the great possibility that it had errors subject to scientific racism. This is what I can non-biased editing because it shares both of our opinion. To remove it like basically claiming it never existed. Spiritclaymore (talk) 02:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Dougweller replied on the talk page, repeating the clear consensus on the talk page to not add the material. You were then reverted by a number of editors, a sign that your edits were against consensus.

That the material was there for some time does not matter, it should not have been there, and it is not there now. You have not provided any convincing arguments for the inclusion of the material. The consensus is to not include the material, and that's so obvious that Ray Charles could see it from the dark side of the moon. Your refusal to listen to consensus is not an excuse, it only makes you look bad.

As for you taking way too long to learn to not plagiarize, I've seen editors blocked for screwing up with plagiarism half as much as you did.

As for "shares both of our opinion" - Wikipedia does not operate that way, see WP:GEVAL. If scientific consensus is on one side, and the opposing view is not backed by mainstream academia, we do not create a false balance. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, you and other moderators had reverted my edits in a very short time, it was like stalking me and removing all my other wiki page edits in a matter of minutes or less than a hour and I complied to it. Yet this time is the totally opposite, you claim not to add unwanted materials yet you obviously allowed such a unwanted for materials for a long time, or perharps not every moderator can be on their job 24 hours ( or for other reasons ) but lasting for half a year is still inexcusable. I still feel suspicious though and other possibilities of why being removed now. My feelings are 50/50 and sadly I may never know the truth and I do not have the power to restore the edit. I wouldn't be surprised half of the stuff I read would be removed later on.

There is even a wiki page of Optimism bias on moderators. It says " A meta-analysis reviewing the relationship between the optimistic bias and perceived control found that a number of moderators contribute to this relationship. " so I can't say I totally agree with all your opinions -- Spiritclaymore (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Note. Spiritclaymmore, I should block you for breaching WP:3RR and your lack of insight into the policy but, instead, I'm going to give you some tips and let another administrator decide whether to impose sanctions:

• You are very stubborn. You don't really listen to what other more experienced editors tell you, and you keep repeating your notions as to how things should work instead of learning how they in fact work here.
• Your understanding of WP:3RR is flawed. All you have to do is change the article in some substantive way, and that counts as a revert. Your notion that because you have theoretically eliminated the copyright violation and rephrased the material, that doesn't count as a revert is wrong.
• Your idea that because something was in an article for a long time, it must be okay to restore it is flat-out incorrect. I believe there are over 4M articles here, and even with all the editors we have reviewing the quality of articles (not to mention bots), much inappropriate material goes unnoticed for long periods of time. It's effectively impossible for it to be any other way. It's no one's "job" here; we're all volunteers.
• Just because no one replies to you on a talk page does not give you implicit permission to revert.
• Articles must be neutral and reliably sourced. However, they don't have to be balanced if the only way to achieve that "balance" is to include material that is fringe and produced by unacceptable sources.

End of Wikipedia 101.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked 24 hours for edit warring. After his original 3RR violation, User:Spiritclaymore returned to the Huns article on 21 October and re-added the word 'Mongoloid' to the article, though he has no support for that on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Roscelese reported by User:Juno (Result: No action)

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

Previous version reverted to: [100]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [101]
2. [102]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [103]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [104]

Comments:

Article is subject to 1RR Community Sanctions per WP:ARBAB. I let Roscelese off with a warning for edit warring on a different abortion-related article earlier this week but she chose to continue to edit war.

Elizium23 warned Roscelese about the removal of maintenance tags, a warning that Roscelese removed. Elizium23 then warned Roscelese about her subsequent 1RR violation and offered her the chance to self-revert. Roscelese, after being warned multiple times about edit warring on abortion-related articles, chose to make 2 reverts in 40 minutes and chose to not self-revert when offered the chance to do so. Juno (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Removing an unclear maintenance tag shouldn't be counted as a revert. Take a look at the talk page. The current version is acceptable with no need of the maintenance tag. The source still doesn't mention Scott Roeder and he's still in the article. Some of the points are pedantic. Oh no the source calls him a killer but not a murderer. Shulman was hypothetical. "I will kill you but only if this person is acquitted." The source didn't say Roeder was anti-abortion but the hot linked article on him did. If the tag and the reason for the tag was clear that could have been added to the article.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:REVERT, it counts as a revert. The discussion about that tag was ongoing on the talk page, the user was warned about 1RR multiple times, she was let off with a warning about edit warring on the same topic earlier this week, and she declined a chance to self-revert. Juno (talk) 07:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Well obviously yes it is but then so is [105] and [106]. It's already clear that Elizium is aware of the policy here. But I'm sure that should really be counted either. Not much of an edit war.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

That was 2 reverts inside of 23 hours and 58 minutes (as is opposed to 2 reverts in 39 minutes), if you want to file a report for that I'm not here to stop you. Juno (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes but the other abortion article incident that you are talking about happened about as close as that. There's no need to file another report. It's right here already. It's of the same incident. It was case of drive by tagging. It led to some absolutely ridiculous comments on the talk page. The article said killer and not murderer. Really? The article didn't call this hypothetical threat hypothetical. Really? And while the source didn't mention.....I'm hoping that common sense can be used here.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

If you read the talk page, it is a fair bit more complicated than that. Juno (talk) 11:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• If we should strictly apply 1RR both Roscelese and Elizium23 should be blocked for edit warring. But looking at the silliness of the dispute as pointed above by Serialjoepsycho, and considering that the dispute appears moot (the sentence was rewritten and the tag removed), I suggest to close this thread. Cavarrone 11:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
• Her established pattern of conduct toward Elizium23 and other editors should be taken into consideration. Has she consistently been a good collaborator, or has she been disruptive? Atsme☯^Consult 19:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: No action. The dispute has quiesced and people are now working to improve the article. Editors should be aware that per WP:GS, abortion-related articles are still under 1RR. EdJohnston (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

User:180.216.85.183 reported by User:The Rambling Man (Result: Blocked, and blocked again for a week)

Page: Gina Rinehart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 180.216.85.183 (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 (in the past 97 minutes, notwithstanding the other reverts in the previous few days):

1. [107]
2. [108]
3. [109]
4. [110]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [112], and user's talk page: [113], [114], [115], [116]

Comments:
There's a lengthy discussion on the talk page which shows a clear majority and consensus for a particular variation of "chairman/woman/person". However, that's somewhat irrelevant to the case in question, whereby a clear violation of 3RR has taken place in just over an hour-and-a-half. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Acroterion (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• The anon has returned to exact same edit warring, 3RR violation (in less than 12 hours, even). He has vowed in an earlier edit-summary to get his way no matter what [117], and seems to mean it. Choor monster (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Here are the new 3RR diffs: [118] [119] [120]

Choor monster (talk) 13:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the article for six months. Another admin has reblocked the IP. EdJohnston (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Thank you, Choor monster and EdJohnston. The IP hasn't breached 3RR since the first block (that takes four reverts, not three), but they immediately returned to edit warring again on the same page. These are aggravated circumstances. Bishonen | talk 13:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC).

User:Grammophone reported by User:NatGertler (Result: Blocks)

Page

Galerie Gmurzynska (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC) "Restores suppressed history."

1. 16:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC) "Restores properly documented and sourced history of the gallery."

1. 21:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC) "Responds to administrators' remarks on edit warring."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion */ don't resume the edit war."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 23:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Stubifying */ new section"

Comments:

Resumption of edit war right after unprotection of page, following previous report of edit war. User has not engaged in talk page discussion since, but has merely posted to my talk page to explain why his edit warring isn't edit warring. (PS: If anyone wants to take over being the eyes on this article, please do. I'm tired of the game of both sides of this.) Nat Gertler (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Two editors blocked 3 days: User:Grammophone and User:Art&Design3000. Bbb23 warned both participants in this closure of the previous 3RR earlier this month. Ten days of full protection was not enough to cool down these guys. It appears that Art&Design3000 has also been reverting using an IP. There might be considered to be BLP issues, but the negative material is well-sourced. Mostly the article needs some normal editing to restore perspective and omit the blow-by-blow of legal disputes. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

User:AbelM7 reported by User:HMWD (Result: Blocks)

Page: List of wars involving Mexico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
AbelM7: AbelM7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [121]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [122]
2. [123]
3. [124]
4. [125]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[126]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [127], [128], [129]

Comments:
I am having problems with the user AbelM7 once again, we have had problems regarding this kind articles back some months ago, yet here we are again, last time it took weeks and various users to make him understand. He keeps removing data that is appropiate for the arcticle, especially when, as i explained to him in his talk page and edit summaries many times now that the incidents i want to add are nowhere near to be as simple as he describes them in his summaries and that there are another entries in the page that are less relevant and less fitting to be there, but he has no problem with them, AbelM7 is a user that is constantly engaged in edit wars and on his talk page there are always other users asking him to stop editing in the arbitrary and biased manner he edits (he always removes/adds data because he wants it, not because is appropiate or not, writting the same false argments again and again in the edit summaries, disregarding all the explanations that other users give to him), He has been blocked for ewdit warring and violating the 3RR 3 times before this year, with the most recent being two weeks ago [130] He does know wha he is doing, and has been warned enough times before for acting the way he acts

That's all i think. HMWD (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: AbelM7 and HMWD are blocked four days each. They both have a history of edit warring. Instead of reverting forever you could try for a talk page consensus or use WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

User:HMWD reported by User:AbelM7 (Result: Blocks)

Page: List of wars involving Mexico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HMWD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [131]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [132]
2. [133]
3. [134]
4. [135]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [137], [138], [139], [140]

Comments:
Once again, HMWD has decided to start another edit war with me in the same article. We had a dispute a while back and it took weeks and interference by other users to make him understand and then we reached a compromise. Now he's back, this time trying to add an expedition and a massacre to the list of wars involving Mexico. He keeps on adding the expedition and the massacre. I keep on explaining to him (many times) why they shouldn't be there (obvious one: they're not wars) but he ignores the reasons, comes up with "both incidents involved hundreds of men and lasted from weeks to months" as a reason (they could last however long, that still wouldn't make them wars) and keeps on adding them there. This would be the equivalent of adding the Lewis and Clark Expedition and the Boston Massacre to the list of wars involving the United States. I don't want to edit war with him. He seems to have created his profile just for editing on the Border War and List of wars involving Mexico with his own biased editing and doesn't show any signs of stopping. He just won't listen. AbelM7 (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Once again, HMWD has decided to start another edit war with me in the same article AbelM7, i think you must read WP:EDITWAR first, you are the reverter here, by definition you started the edit war, and keep ignoring all the reasons i've given to you and keep reverting, and every time you are reported instantly after you open a case to report the user that reported you, wikipedia is not a game or a toy. I am now wondering if you really believe that what you are doing is fair and unbiased in any way (because i've told you many times before: many incidents already included in that article are worse in every way than the ones i want to include, call it relevancy, duration, number of men involved, officiality whatever. But you don't have any problem with these), or you just like to play with the patience of other editors. Whenever you edit it takes big presure from other editors, treaths of blocking or you getting blocked to make you desist from doing your plays in other articles, you have been blocked three times for doing this before [141]. Is not that everyone else is at fault and you are right, you are the one that is at fault. HMWD (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Both editors blocked per an earlier report of the same dispute. See above. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Cjmooney9 reported by User:Flyer22 (Result: 36 hours)

Page: Pedophilia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cjmooney9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [142]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [143]
2. [144]
3. [145]
4. [146]

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

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

Comments:
Cjmooney9 has a history of engaging in WP:Synthesis and WP:Edit warring at the Pedophilia article, and elsewhere on Wikipedia, and never seems to truly adhere to the WP:Edit warring policy or the idea of building WP:Consensus on the talk page first. Flyer22 (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Just noting that Cjmooney9 has now reverted again, after they were notified of this 3RR report. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours De728631 (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I am following Wikimedia edit warring/dispute/resolution as part of my own study, and have read this article history. Editors shouldn't be using their knowledge of the Wikimedia bureaucracy to control pages. It's the very reason we might not even have a site in 5 years - willing contributors being scared off. It annoys me so I comment. From what I can tell from the talk page, the user was pointing out what he saw as factual errors, and looking to make improvements. These edits seemed small, and valid. But they were simply being deleted immediately by "Flyer22" with no explanation. Any attempts to explain the changes on the talk page, were quickly dismissed. He has then obviously used his knowledge of the bureaucracy to report the user once he had made the prerequisite number of edit attempts. I should also add both users made 4 reverts to the article. It was not multiple users deleting the changes, in a consensus. It was a single person making continued reverts. "Flyer22" could have been reported to you himself for breaking the 3RR.

These aggressive Editors know there will never be enough contributors to overrule the version they want. They handle individual editors, by reverting their edits, dismissing their suggestions on the talk page, and then using the bureaucracy to control them if they continue arguing. Until eventually the contributor leaves the site.

Edits done in good faith, by people looking to improve the article, should not be continually reverted by a single user, acting on behalf of "the article". Or the version of the article they personally want to see. It's against the spirit of the site, and it's rules. It's made even worse when the Editor then uses their knowledge of the site bureaucracy to report new contributors, to intimidate them from making contribution. The person editing the articles is often operating with good faith, in the spirit of the site. The person reverting, as they don't want "their" article changed in any way, often isn't.

This system of white male Editors, patrolling pages, and gaming the system to keep things how they want, will be the death of Wikipedia. In 5 years they won't have a page to patrol, as the site would have lost too many contributors to operate.

Ninanaly (talk)

A couple of replies:

• The reverts were explained, in the edit summaries and on the article's talk page, by Flyer22 and others.
• Neither Flyer22 nor any of the others who reverted Cjmooney9 violated the 3RR.
• I can assure you that not all of the involved users are white men, because I'm not a white man.
• This wasn't about others knowing more than Cjmooney9 about WP bureaucracy, because the 3RR was explained to Cjmooney9 on their talk page, in edit summaries, and on Flyer22's talk page. Not only did Cjmooney9 continue to revert after the 3RR was explained, but they continued to revert after being informed that they'd been reported here.

Thank you for your interest; I trust this clears up your concerns, but please feel free to ask me on my talk page or the article's talk page if you have any questions (the 3RR board isn't the best place to continue this, probably). Cheers! Dawn Bard (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Dawn Bard. Your WP:Assume good faith approach regarding Ninanaly (talk · contribs) is amazing. Me, on the other hand, however? I will state right now that Ninanaly is a WP:Sockpuppet who "just happened" to pop up in this report for their "first edit." Better to ignore the WP:Sockpuppet until it is time to report the WP:Sockpuppet, especially since the WP:Sockpuppet has reported this matter inaccurately above. To state that there was one editor (meaning me) reverting Cjmooney9 is obviously false, for example. And, no, Ninanaly, I am not a male, as is well known among many very experienced Wikipedians. Flyer22 (talk) 03:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

User:181.188.110.223 reported by User:Creativity-II (Result: Blocked)

Page

WWE Libraries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 19:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 21:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style) on WWE Libraries. (TW)"
2. 04:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style) on WWE Libraries. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Has repeatedly ignored warnings against disregarding Manual of Style and has even removed a final warning against him from his talk page. Creativity-II (talk) 04:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. I didn't block the IP for edit warring but for suspected sock puppetry (see User:GomezChristo) and obvious disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

User:1.42.15.25 reported by User:MelbourneStar (Result: Semiprotection 3 weeks )

Page

Prime Minister of Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 11:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 630621850 by HiLo48 (talk)"
3. 07:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 07:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 630621537 by Dmol (talk) sure can discuss on talk page"
5. 06:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 630593755 by MelbourneStar (talk) explain your reasons, TIMELINE is to varied"
6. 10:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC) "i like the headings , because it is more comprehensive i feel"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Prime Minister of Australia. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP continues to edit war, despite being asked to discuss changes numerous times. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I've just semi'ed it for three weeks. They can make an account and edit the article again in a few days if that dedicated. Not fond of blocking ip addresses...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Hboetes reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: dif

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10 October 2014 diff adding criticism of critics
2. 13 October 2014 diff adding back that criticism of critics after it had been reverted
3. 16 October 2014 diff adding back that criticism of critics after it had been reverted
4. 18 October 2014 diff adding back that criticism of critics after it had been reverted
5. 18:02 20 October 2014 diff ramping up now and removing criticism of Greger's ideas altogether
6. 19:11 21 October 2014 diff again deleting criticism of Greger's ideas after it had been restored
7. 18:29, 22 October 2014 diff again deleting criticism of Greger's ideas after it had been restored

Efforts to get Hboetes to discuss

• 17 October 2014 Hboete's Talk page thread opened by Brianyoumans to try to draw Hboetes into discussion
• dismissive reponse by Hboetes
• 18 October 2014 another attempt by Brianyoumans on Hboetes' talk page urging Hboetes to discuss on article Talk page
• 20:26, 21 October 2014 3RR warning from Jytdog
• 20:26, 21 October 2014 warned user not to edit war and follow BRD in this edit note
• 20:27, 21 October 2014 Jytdog created Welcome message as no one had done that
• 20:33, 21 October 2014 Jytdog writes long note about how Wikipedia works on Hboetes' page, trying to teach Hboetes and pull into discussion
• 18:28, 22 October 2014 Hboetes blanks his Talk page (after which Hboetes went and made another revert)
• 18:33, 22 October 2014 Jytdog offers one more chance to avoid this
• 18:34, 22 October 2014 Hboetes promptly deletes]

Comments:
This is a slow edit war. Hboetes is a WP:SPA. All his edits to date have been adding information positive about the subject, adding criticism to his critics, or removing criticism. We've made extensive efforts to engage Hboetes who has never posted on article Talk page and today blanked his talk page and reverted again. Hboetes is WP:NOTHERE. Please block. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC) (striking to correct Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC))

Of course jytdog mentions a very one sided story. I did try to talk reason with those guys on various times.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMichael_Greger&diff=630398545&oldid=630381250

And my initial edit was undone without decent reasoning nor listening. I don't mind criticism to Dr. Greger, but this reference is slander from someone who firmly believes eating meat is healthy and is clearly biased on the matter. User jytdog is abusing the system he knows quite well by now. This doesn't mean he isn't biased.

Please look at the whole log, also on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hboetes (talk • contribs) 19:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

that is a good call, I missed that. I apologize and have struck my remark above. Hboetes has made three comments on the Talk page:

• 10:17, 18 October 2014 dif with rhetorical questions not dealing with policy or guidelines.
• 17:14, 20 October 2014 diff again comments based on personal preference (calling a 2013 critique outdated...)
• 17:22, 20 October 2014 diff just adding a bit to his earlier statement with further unsourced opinon.

again my apology for getting that wrong. Hboetes should still be blocked for edit warring and not making effort to discuss in good faith, based on policy and guideline. per his comments above. We need him to learn that good faith discussion based on policies and guidelines is how Wikipedia functions - not edit warring and strong opinions. (i have not gone into what was in his edit notes!) Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

User:KeyboardWarriorOfZion reported by User:Two kinds of pork (Result: Blocked)

Page: Third rail of politics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: KeyboardWarriorOfZion (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. [149]
2. [150]
3. [151]
4. [152]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[153] and [154]

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

Comments:KeyboardWarriorOfZion having edited both the article and talk page in question since July is well aware that adding to article the claim that (roughly speaking) American relations with the State of Israel is a "third rail" does not have consensus for inclusion. I was hoping my second warning today would get him to discuss the sourcing problems mentioned on the talk page. I suppose he is calling my hand, so I don't know what else to do but file this report.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 05:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the problem how I can't contribute BOTH in the talk page and the actual entry. I also don't know why my comments have gone unanswered in this topic when I dare challenged this Two kinds of pork fellow, and all he did was threaten me with a block when I justified my edits. CHECK YOUR CITATIONS! (talk) 06:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

At issue is the fact that you are not discussing, but dictacting. Yoy participated in the discussion over the summer, and indeed the discussion is still on the page. So far it is fairly obvious that there is no consensus for your preferred version. You can try dispute resolution if you wish, but you should return the article in the status quo antebellum in the interim. Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 06:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore your questioning if I'm an Israeli or an American Jew is tantamount an ad hominem argument, and could be considered a personal attack. Howecer as I've stated before, your username indicates you may have a WP:COI with respect to Israel, as many have used Zionism as a pejorative with matters related to Israel.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 06:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours for long-term edit warring. The user has been reverting on this point since May 2014. There is no hint that he is ever going to accept consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

User:109.153.42.194 reported by User:Charlesdrakew (Result: Semi)

Page

Uno (bus company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC) "This company has made the news more than a couple of times. Added accident section with news backed refernces"
2. 20:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC) "Added to history section."
3. 21:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC) "we don't have to censor all of them either. perhaps only the recent ones will be a fair compromise."
4. 21:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 630707069 by Charlesdrakew (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

New page hence no diff.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit warring after template warning on user's talkpage Charles (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Bbaskbas reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: 21 Oct

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22 Oct, 13:08
2. 22 Oct, 13:28
3. 22 Oct, 16:31
4. 22 Oct, 17:05

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Bbaskbas (3RR warning and discretionary sanctions notice, after the first two reverts)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Istanbul#Fringe claims about etymology (initiated discussion after the first of my own reverts today)

Comments:

New user insists on inserting isolated claim sourced to fringe author in a nationalist/populist tabloid newspaper; refuses to take note of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE in discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

User:BQUB14-Ebuades reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Protected)

Page: PrimPol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BQUB14-Ebuades (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: dif

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:37, 22 October diff
2. 21:12, 22 October diff
3. 21:34, 22 October diff
4. 21:41, 22 October diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• warned
• warned by Donner60
• 3RR warning by me
• 2nd warning by Donner60

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

Comments:

BQUB14-Ebuades appears to be a medical student in Spain (others from the group have talked to me here. They do not appear in touch with with Wikiproject Education at all. Almost all of them are behaving badly but this editor is wildly bad. 4 attempts to completely over-write decent content with badly written and badly sourced content, with no discussion. (another editor and I worked it over this morning and got it into decent shape).

BQUB14-Ebuades has not talked back on his/her talk page, not talked on the article page, not left an edit note. Nada. This is where education projects really slide over into pure COI where the student's work is more important to them the Encyclopedia and WP:NOTHERE just comes streaming through. 72 hour block, please. Jytdog (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Article fully protected two weeks. Multiple BQUB14-* students have edited this article and I notice that all of their changes have been rolled back. Ask for unprotection once this can be sorted out. EdJohnston (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Last rabbi reported by User:Jamie Tubers (Result: Block, warning)

Page

Render to Caesar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Last rabbi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid addition of 'received mixed critical reviews'; repetitive, as is already reflected under 'Reception'."
2. 20:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision by Jamie Tubers (talk) Standard film pages on Wikipedia do not include critical reception as part of summary in article lead. Check."
3. 21:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision by Jamie Tubers"
4. 22:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision by Jamie Tubers (talk) Check your talk page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user keeps reverting an appropriate contribution unnecessarily. I warned him; but instead of him to ask questions/discuss, he went ahead to revert once more; stating that some articles do not have summary of their reception in the lead as well. He also implied that I am attacking the subject in his reply on my talkpage here. I believe this user has a "conflict of Interest" for the subject of the article, as he/she hasn't made significant contributions to other articles outside this subject. This user has also violated the "3RR" rule. Jamie Tubers (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – User:Last rabbi is blocked 24 hours for 3RR violation and concern about promotional editing. User:Jamie Tubers is warned that in a two-person edit war both parties are risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Aight 2009 reported by User:Kashmiri (Result: Stale)

Page: Council of the European Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aight 2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Council_of_the_European_Union&oldid=628831988

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Council_of_the_European_Union&diff=628835211&oldid=628831988
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Council_of_the_European_Union&diff=628851008&oldid=628844430
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Council_of_the_European_Union&diff=628955710&oldid=628852090
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Council_of_the_European_Union&diff=629021340&oldid=628988280

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aight_2009&diff=628856863&oldid=628853670

Attempt to resolve dispute on the User's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aight_2009#Names_of_the_Danish_political_party_.22Radikale_Venstre.22

Aight 2009 (talk) 10:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC) I paste ther my arguments on the user page Blue-Haired Lawyer. He didn't respond on it: if you see close to talk which somebody started you would read that no one answer on my statement. please read it firstly. next thing is if people think that radikale means social-liberal it's shame and being against the dictionary. Why we then include radical left name on the article of party? I repeat it but going this way Portuguese social democratic party should change name but only in English translation because isn't social democratic but centre-right. Oh but why didn't do it? because they use dictionary. Aight 2009 (talk) 06:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I can add that until this year people used "original" name of party GERB in Bulgaria which was said to abbreviation but it doesn't. Party was registered as GERB only. People used to think that cannot be full name so they created false acronym GERB= Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria. We should keep only original name. I add also that this cannot take place with irish parties because they are registered only in irish, so irish English use it without translation. Aight 2009 (talk) 06:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

In addition I don't want to change article name of radikale venstre (name of GERB I changed) I just defend using original name on the article Council of the European Union. Aight 2009 (talk) 09:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

3RR slightly outside the 24h period (perhaps due to night), however Aight 2009 has been pointed out by three different editors (Tsuroerusu, Blue-Haired Lawyer, and myself) that the naming issue should be discussed at Talk:Danish Social Liberal Party, where it actually seems resolved; in spite of these three opinions, Aight 2009 keeps reverting correct edits. I will be grateful for an authoritative opinion on this edit war. Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 23:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Stale. The reverts you're listing are from October 8-9. The last revert was on October 12.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

That's only because the edit warrior's preferred version was left in place. There's already been one further revert today, and I suspect another one shortly. Btw Aight 2009's edit summary was "Result of your edit warring: stale". — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 16:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Two further reverts by Aight 2009 on 20 October:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Council_of_the_European_Union&diff=630359599&oldid=630299153

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Council_of_the_European_Union&diff=630405826&oldid=630388609

kashmiri ^TALK 20:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Another revert by Aight 2009 on 22 October:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Council_of_the_European_Union&diff=630706844&oldid=630698594.

This user insists on violating WP:NCPP and disregards all advice offered to him/her by more experienced editors. Appalling. kashmiri ^TALK 10:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Jeh reported by User:Janagewen (Result: Nothing to do here)

Page: Talk:Physical Address Extension (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jeh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For this users always use airy words to describe what I post on Wikipedia.org, such as "little", "wrong"... and denote "done" on the section what I post without my decision on it, and guided me what I should do. This behavior could potentially be counted as personal attack and violate the Freedom of Wikipedia.org.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [156]

Comments:

There were no "reverts" at all (unless one counts Janagewen's deletion of my "Done" tag), let alone three.

• Janagewen added a paragraph of supposed "explanation" to a months-old thread.
• As that "explanation" was in fact "not even wrong," I replied, with corrections. I then decided the talk page was long overdue for archiving, so I added an archive bot template.
• Janagewen thanked me for my reply.
• I [pointed out that I'd given the same explanation months ago during the thread's previous life.
• Since the thread in question would have been archived months ago had archiving been set up, I switched to an archive bot that supports requested archiving and added a {{Done}} tag to the thread, in an attempt to avoid further similar "contributions". The latter was an overreach, and I apologize.
• Janagewen objected to this and removed the Done tag.
• There was one more exchange. (I'm leaving the talk page alone until this EW report is settled.)
• About 20 minutes later, Janagewen created this report.
• Janagewen has now wasted roughly fifteen minutes of my time (the time it took to create this reply and find all the links to the diffs), all because he doesn't know what a "revert" or an "edit war" is. (Is there something like AN/WP:CIR?)

It is clear that Janagewen feels wronged that I should correct his erroneous statements, or that I should request archiving of "his" thread, but that has nothing to do with edit-warring. I think he really wanted some other forum. Jeh (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I am so glad that Jeh made some replies here. But there is another serious sentence from him, "I think he really wanted some other forum."

I thought Jeh were a respectful professor about 5 years ago, when my first stupid revision about PAE were reverted by him. That was the very reason I started that topic, and stated my ideas about it. Yeah, this is not a edit war, and nothing serious about edit war, removing or even reverting. The most serious thing is that people would love to join and express his/her reasonable ideas about it, because that is a talk page. Jeh is great, and I do like to read what he wrote, and learned a lot from him. I know I might post so many improper topics on Wikipedia.org, but I have done, and that might be the very reason to "some other fourm.". But I have to say Wikipedia.org is the greatest, and too many great people that delight my lonely way, including respectful Jeh. But I've already left a report here, ok, just let it stay without reasoning whether proper or not... Janagewen (talk) 10:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

By "some other forum" I meant perhaps WP:AN/I, rather than here at EW. That was not a suggestion that you find someplace other than WP, not at all. Jeh (talk) 10:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Nothing to do here. This doesn't seem to be a report of edit warring. I hope that the above exchange of views has led to better understanding. EdJohnston (talk) 13:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Bangbang43 reported by User:Wiki-senetor (Result: Both blocked)

Page

Twenty:20 (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Bangbang43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 630650095 by Wiki-senetor (talk)heyy Mr. mind your words"
2. 13:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 630648167 by Wiki-senetor (talk)vandal"
3. 12:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 630625079 by Wiki-senetor (talk)proper vandalism"
4. 04:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 630554942 by Wiki-senetor (talk)removing the official poster and promotional."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

His account is in favour for a particular actor, high vandalism and bad language. Promoting a particular actor and degrading an other. Wiki-senator 16:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – Wiki-senetor is blocked 24 hours. Bangbang43 has been blocked 48 hours by User:Ronhjones. In the future, please consider WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Serten reported by User:NewsAndEventsGuy (Result: Blocked)

• Page: Scientific opinion on climate change (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), which I think is under 1RR
  
• User being reported: Serten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  

User notified of this filing here
Past History

• This user has a really impressive block log at the German wiki; other editors commented about this at Serten's user page. Serten deleted that discussion/warning (as is his right) on Aug 30 2014
  
• This user received an edit war warning from this board on a different article earlier this month
  

DIFFS (verified that these are not in series)

• 02:29, October 22, 2014‎ Serten Added {{too few opinions}} tag to article
• 03:06, October 22, 2014‎ Serten Its rather important to include what the IPCC and the IAC see as important limitations of its own activities, the consensus includes known unknowns as well, Version without {{too few opinions}}
• 07:29, October 22, 2014‎ Serten Try to increase competence by reading valid and important sources. See talk page.
• 07:36, October 22, 2014‎ Serten Calling Oppenheimers essay an individual viewopoint is sort of stark
• 09:09, October 22, 2014‎ Serten If the article doesnt deal with the IPCC, move redundant content where it belongs.
• 09:19, October 22, 2014‎ Serten see talk page

USER TALK PAGE RESPONSE

• 10:19, October 22, 2014 At his user talk, Serten explicitly refuses to self-revert and rejects another ed's assertion that Serten has broken 3RR.
  

COMMENT I realize this isn't AE, but just to emphasize the behavior here, this article is under DS(climate). Serten was warned about DS on climate in June, and I reminded him of that in an ill-conceived ANI he filed just a few days ago.
ACTION SOUGHT Whatever you think will prevent future edit/template warring. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked 24 hours. I see four reverts starting at 7:29. Serten's talk comment where he says his edits were about 'different content in two different cases' is not significant when counting up towards four reverts. Per WP:EW *all* reverts are counted. EdJohnston (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. If reverts were accumulative in one article, there would be various people blocked forever. Actually two cases, ongoing discussion on talk page and proper adjustment of the tags in question. Factually the climate team tries to impose an informal topic bockade, they revert even content based on IPCC internal sources. WP coud do better on the topic. Serten (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Eurocentral reported by User:Borsoka (Result: No action)

Page: Origin of the Romanians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Eurocentral (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [157] (first sentence of the lead)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [158]
2. [159]
3. [160]
4. [161]
5. [162]
6. [163] (his first return to his version after an RfC was initiated and a consensus was reached)
7. [164] (deletion of an inline template message)
8. [165]
9. [166]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [167] (Eurocentral is warned in the edit summary)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [168] (RfC - which ended with a consensual lead: [169])
2. [170] (he opened a separate debate on the same issue during the RfC, with my warning to stop edit warring)

Comments:
Just for information, he has just initiated a SPI against me (without informing me). Dear administrators, please inform me if Eurocentral's behaviour is acceptable in our community. In this case, I also have to change my attitude to adopt this new standard.

• Result: No action, but User:Eurocentral is notified of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE. All parties should notice the RfC at Talk:Origin of the Romanians#RfC: What would be a neutral first sentence? I suggest that people make specific proposals for the wording of the lead, because the RfC has now been going for almost a month. After 30 days it will expire off the RfC lists and it may be harder to get an agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Lgaddjjg reported by User:Dreadstar (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [171]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [172]
2. [173]
3. [174]
4. [175]
5. [176]
6. [177]
7. [178]
8. [179]
9. [180]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [181]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [182]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Acroterion (talk) 02:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

User:2600:1006:B11D:C6B1:B945:D20A:9451:85D reported by User:Aichik (Result: No violation)

Page: Marty Markowitz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:1006:B11D:C6B1:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [183]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [184]
2. [185]
3. [186]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [187]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [188]

Comments:

I was going to wait for 4th revert but this person's IP is anonymous so I feel like there might be some bad faith editing there. --Aichik (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

There is also a problem with repeated POV blanking from this anon IP here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Hart&diff=630818352&oldid=630784890 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Hart&diff=630607183&oldid=630599580 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Hart&diff=630571240&oldid=630540282 I am requesting an investigation for Wiki:sockCarpo- Rusyn (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not experienced in how things work at this noticeboard, but I would like to mention that Aichik has not provided a link to where he warned this IP, nor to where he tried to resolve this dispute. The link provided for "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning" is the same as the one provided for "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page". And what does that link lead to? A section on the IP's talk page, consisting only of "Here is what I mean about OVERCITE," plus a signature. That is obviously not a warning for edit warring, and I don't think it can be counted as an attempt at dispute resolution either. I would suggest that Aichik provide what this noticeboard asks for.
In addition, the person reported here has made many edits since registering just a few days ago, and all look constructive from the quick glance I gave them. While they can edit war as well as anyone else, they don't look like a bad-faith vandal.
I'm not making any claims besides what I've explicitly stated, and I apologize if I shouldn't be sticking my nose here. But I just want to make sure an administrator takes this stuff into consideration. NealCruco (talk) 00:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't concur. This is an anonymous IP. It is unknown if there is also registered account. What my quick review of the edit history of the IP noticed, was a large number of reverts without corresponding discussion or the addition of constructive content. It is very easy to find fault with the work of others, but I believe that editing should strive to be more affirmative than simply negative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpo- Rusyn (talk • contribs) 04:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• No violation. The three reverts listed (which are links instead of the requested diffs) are days apart. Considering the changes going back and forth, this is barely an edit war, and one of the stupider ones I've seen - and I've seen some pretty stupid battles - in a while. Why doesn't everyone do something more constructive than arguing over ncluding or not including a cite? And, Carpo- Rusyn, the accusations of socking are unsupported by anything, so put a lid on it. It doesn't help that you yourself are a very newly registered account and come out of nowhere charging socking.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Cevdet24 reported by User:Noyster (Result: Blocked)

Page: International Turkish Hope School, Dhaka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cevdet24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [189]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [190]
2. [191]
3. [192]
4. [193]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [194]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [195]

Comments:

Repeated insertion of promotional material copied from school website after 3 warnings.

Please refer to page history. I & ClueBot have 3x reverted promotional & copyvio insertions. The article needed attention but Cevdet24 was warned twice that they were going about this the wrong way (initial warning, second warning). They made no effort to respond in any way and are at their 4th turn of adding the same material, with slight variations: Noyster (talk), 21:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Bubybyb reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: No action)

Page

Lyme disease (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 19:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC) to 19:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
   1. 19:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 19:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 19:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Lyme disease. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 10:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Repeated removal of well sourced content in short time */ new section"

Comments:

Cluebot welcome and warning 15:12, 23 October 2014

Unconstructive editing warning 15:16, 23 October 2014

Looks like a SPA vandal. MrBill3 (talk) 10:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• Declined. This is straightforward vandalism and should be treated as such. Once the user has sufficiently vandalized and been appropriately warned, they should be reported to WP:AIV. That hasn't happened yet, and the user has reverted the article twice (serious blanking), which doesn't justify a report here.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Francis Schonken reported by User:Scottperry (Result: Locked)

Page: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Francis Schonken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Diff showing the last pre-edit war policy version: 6 July 2014

Note regarding the diff above: The first diff shown above was Francis' first attempt to alter Wikipedia policy without any prior consensus discussion on the policy's talk page. Fortunately User:Flyer22 typically "guards" that page against such changes without any consensus discussion, as she did on that day (July 9) within 5 minutes of Francis' first attempt to foist his preferred NPOV policy onto Wikipedia without any consensus with anyone else.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Diff of July 30th, showing user waited 21 days, then quietly, again reverted/ inserted his personally preferred NPOV policy without any prior consensus discussion on the policy talk page.
2. Diff of Oct. 23rd, showing reversion made after a very lengthy discussion on the policy talk page (initiated by Scott) specifically about the user's July 30 reversion.
3. Diff of Oct. 24th, showing user's last policy reversion.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Revised Diff showing edit war warning (first link was incorrect)Scott P. (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Lengthy discussion specifically about this user's July 30 revert, by the bottom of the discussion, it appears that this user no longer has any support at all for his reverts, yet he continues to revert

Comments:

Francis is a seasoned 9 year veteran of Wikipedia, with lots of knowledge of the intricacies of administrative actions. He has a lengthy history of edit-war related blocks. We have been trying to discuss his desired policy change with him now for three days, and ultimately, his last ditch effort to try to save his desired policy change is merely to enter into another edit-war and somehow hope nobody notices? What is he thinking?? He has now wasted my time, and that of many others, with an apparent absolute disregard for consensus. I have not the slightest desire to be up at 4 AM local time having to write this, then go into work when I'm done. I would like to request a one month ban for Francis, banning him from any WP policy pages, so perhaps he might begin to remember exactly what consensus is the next time it occurs to him to behave so disruptively. (This is my first reporting of a 3RR violation. I hope I did it right. Any suggestions as to how I might have done better would be most appreciated. Thanks.) Scott P. (talk) 08:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I wouldn't call Francis Schonken's block log lengthy; I've seen far longer block logs than that. But I understand that your point is that he's been blocked a few times for WP:Edit warring. Flyer22 (talk) 08:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess this is my first time doing this, and any blocks at all are a surprise to me. Scott P. (talk) 09:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• See (also):
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AScottperry&diff=630781311&oldid=630582011#Edit_warring
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AScottperry&diff=630782981&oldid=630781311#WP:ANI
  • Wikipedia:ANI#Disruptive_editing_by_Scottperry_at_WP:NPOV

--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Note, no admin actions on any of those. All were resolved privately and on good terms between myself and the other party. Scott P. (talk) 09:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The last link above is actually a bit funny. It's a link to a "rather abortive attempt" by Francis to have me blocked from Wikipedia. As usual, rather than addressing the questions I have posed to him, begging him to show where he got consensus from in any of his reverts, he attempts to derail the conversation by trying to distract everyone away from the topic at hand, namely did he violate 3RR, and did he fail to get consensus before all of his reverts? Francis, if you could simply answer that single question, you would save all of us here from having to waste any more of our time on your antics (or valid concerns). Did you violate 3RR, and did you fail to prove consensus, or not? The longer you refuse to honestly answer that single simple question, the more it becomesobvious what you are really trying to do here, namely to foist your own personal policy agendas onto the rest of Wikipedia, and to use whatever administrative maneuver you can think of, whether transparent or convoluted, to do the foisting. Proposed solution Francis: revert back your own last reversion yourself, and I would be quite happy to let all of this incident report simply go away. Assuming that would be OK with others (though it may not.) Scott P. (talk) 14:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• Further, I think I also provided an amicable solution to Scottperry's actual problem (which is not with the WP:BALASPS section he keeps reverting to a version before a new consensus was established in July 2014):
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Course_in_Miracles&diff=630900903&oldid=627488408#Content_of_A_Course_in_Miracles
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AA_Course_in_Miracles&diff=630902051&oldid=630197811#Synopsis_requested
• ...and tried to clear misunderstandings resulting from the {{primary}} template:
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk%3APrimary_sources&diff=630909608&oldid=591067565#WP:ABOUTSELF.2FWP:BLPSELFPUB_caveat
• I oppose policies being updated without consensus to solve "ad hoc" issues, as Scotperry did, especially when the perceived problem with the policy is not by far a solution to the "ad hoc" issue, as is the case here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

All of your "alternative suggestions" still don't produce the necessary consensus that you are supposed to wait for before altering WP policy. I suspect that you may be so intent on altering Wikipedia policy like this in order to increase your current domination of some certain fringe articles. Why you think that abandoning consensus as you have here might gain you friends or influence I can't understand. Consensus is a cornerstone of Wikipedia editing. If you don't understand that after 9 years, you baffle me. Scott P. (talk) 09:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

And by the way, this particular issue is my first "foray" into Wikipedia policy. You know those first edits were done by me in good faith, not yet knowing Wikipedia policy on editing policy itself. Those were not "reversions" either, they were each a different proposal, trying to find common ground. You've been working at Wikipedia policy for years and know full well what the consensus requirements are, yet you still treat the 3RR rule, and consensus requirements with complete disregard. Do you think you are somehow 'above' the rest of us? Scott P. (talk) 09:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to get back to a discussion on content...

• at WT:NPOV about the most effective content of the WP:BALASPS section;
• at A Course in Miracles and its talk page about the content of the synopsis that is really missing from the article currently. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
• and, if you wish to contribute, at Template talk:Primary sources about the content of the {{primary}} template.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 09:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Francis, we are here to discuss one thing primarily, did you, or did you not just violate 3RR? And the related question, did you, or did you not get consensus before trying to foist your own personal policy rules on the rest of us, your highness. We are not here on this page to set up a WP policy debate, that is for the talk pages of policy. As I offered yesterday when you waited until I told you I had just gone to work then you went to the admin noticeboard and whined about how you weren't getting your way, if you could provide a single real proof of consensus in your attempted "unilaterally forced policy change", I would be quite happy to have allowed your edit, but how foolish do you take everyone else to be? You still haven't provided a single evidence of consensus, you try to misdirect and befuddle the conversation here, and yet you still feel you are the "offended party". I would advise you, if you really wanted a block, please just continue with your one-person-policy-debate here, continue to refuse to show evidence of consensus, and continue to hope to befuddle the rest of us with your great policy wisdom. (comment first edited at 11:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)) Last revision to comment: Scott P. (talk) 11:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected (full) for one week. I've also restored the policy back to September 11, 2014, prior to its "current" edit war. It's possible that it should be restored to an even earlier version, but for the moment, I didn't want to go there. Substantive changes to core policy without a clear consensus, generally via the Pump or by a community-wide RfC, are unacceptable. Protracted edit warring over them is blockable, but for the present I'm not meting out blocks. Nonetheless, all editors are warned that if they resume reverting after the lock expires, they may be blocked without notice. Scottperry, you are one of the more culpable editors in this battle, and to address your point ("did you, or did you not just violate 3RR"), the answer is no.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I am absolutely floored and astounded, and have no reason to continue any further editing of Wikipedia articles at all if this is how policy is now decided here, allowing one single person to dictate to the rest of us, via such tactics, what Wikipedia policy will be. It's probably for the best for me personally, what a waste of my time editing at all in Wikipedia. Scott P. (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Les7007 reported by User:Poeticbent (Result: Protected)

Page: Project Riese (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Les7007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [196]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [197] (abusive summary: vandalism)
2. [198] (same abusive summary)
3. [199] (same)
4. [200] (same)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [202], [203]

Comments:

Single purpose account Les7007 (talk · contribs) (total of 287 edits) Google-translated Project Riese from the Polish Wikipedia in 2009 and ever since, takes total ownership of it, unable to communicate with other Wikipedians, i.e. deleting invitations to collaborative work from his talkpage, reverting improvements to article with false summaries,[204], deleting cleanup templates repeatedly, and abusing me verbally on the article talk page; for example, after his wp:personal attack was removed, User:Les7007 now edit-wars to restore the same WP:PA back:

1. [205] (same abusive summary: "vandalism")
2. [206] (same)
3. [207] (same)
4. [208] (same)
5. [209] (same)

Poeticbent talk 18:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

I have no problem to communicate with anybody except User:Poeticbent. After reverting some of his chaotic edits [210] he attacked me on the article talk page [211] using abusive summary: "talking to the hand" and words: "this is a lie" and again [212] with words: "stop lying", "talking to a blank wall", "stop making up things" and "quite a departure from your lies"[213]. Then he started campaign of editing my posts:

1. [214]
2. [215]
3. [216]
4. [217]
5. [218]

and attacking Project Riese with "Fanpov" with summary: "tagged as fan page requiring oversight" without any evidence or source:

1. [219]
2. [220]
3. [221]
4. [222]

Please notice his condescending tone in calling me everywhere "single purpose account" because I have only 287 edits.

Les7007 (talk) 02:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• Your total ownership of the article you translated from the Polish Wikipedia does not make you immune to WP:3RR policy, including the use of abusive edit summaries or absurdly repetitious reinsertions of your WP:personal attacks. Wikipedia does not give you the right to behave like a jerk without some kind of repercussions. Read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines at least once before contributing anything in the future.
  Note to the administrator: — Appartently User:Les7007 cannot stop himself from lying even on this page while attempting to (quote-unquote) defend himself. He calls reverts of his wp:personal attacks on article talk page (get this): "campaign of editing my posts". Poeticbent talk 02:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Article fully protected one month. This seems like a two-person dispute with a lot of bad feelings. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution could be followed while the article is protected. Consider WP:3O or WP:DRN. EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• Hi, EdJohnston. Would you please at least remove verbal abuse directed at me at article talk page (coupled with a lie about attitude), and equally abusive edit summary.[223] I don't see why his edit needs to be protected. I stopped reverting in order to seek your help, he did not. Therefore his abuse stays in, but why. Thanks in advance, Poeticbent talk 21:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The talk comments add to the reputation of the person who made them. If User:Les7007 wants them to be part of his record on Wikipedia, fine, let them stand. The comments will still be on view the next time an admin has reason to study his behavior. I see some heavy irony and silliness but no removable attacks. His vandalism charges are not correct. Both of you have now accused the other person of lying and that ought to be sufficient. If you want to remove the 'lying' charges from your own comments then maybe we should approach Les7007 for the same thing. EdJohnston (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

User:S4Wikky reported by User:Velella (Result: Blocked)

Page

Love Jihad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

S4Wikky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC) "Online sources:

www.indianexpress.com www.scroll.in www.indiatimes.com"

1. 20:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 21:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Report is poorly done but filing one was right.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Turkeyphant reported by User:FF-UK (Result: Protected)

Page: Europlug (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Turkeyphant (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]
5. [229]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [230]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [231]

Comments:

User Turkeyphant persists in inserting a claim that the Europlug is physically compatible with the BS 1363 socket, despite the BS 1363 standard requiring that it not be possible to insert a Europlug into a BS 1363 socket. It is possible on some, but not all, BS 1363 sockets to tamper with the safety mechanism to open the shutters, and then force a Europlug into the BS 1363 socket (this is clearly stated in the article), Turkeyphant has not disputed that this can only be done by tampering, and then forcing (The pins of the Europlug have to be forced apart to enter the socket), but claims despite this they are still physically compatible. He also refuses to acknowledge that socket contacts designed to mate with flat pins are not compatible with round pins (there is a danger of arcing caused by poor contact). Further, he insists on distorting a published warning from the UK Electrical Safety Council warning of the widespread occurrence of fires due to the practice which he wishes to promote. FF-UK (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Article protected one week. Please use this time to reach agreement on the talk page. Use WP:Dispute resolution if needed. If the dispute continues after protection expires, it would be logical to block anyone who reverts again without being justified by a consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

User:72.198.187.238 reported by User:WilliamThweatt (Result: Blocked)

Page

Steung Treng Province (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 04:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 04:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 04:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Oddar Meanchey Province. (TW)"
2. 04:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Steung Treng Province. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Other Cambodia-related articles are involved as well (for example Oddar Meanchey Province. User will not communicate or even use the edit summary. William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 04:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

User:MichaelHolmes36 reported by User:Omnedon (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Villa Grove, Illinois (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MichaelHolmes36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [232]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [233]
2. [234]
3. [235]
4. [236]
5. [237]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [238]
2. [239]

Comments:

Originally this user's efforts to add a non-notable person to an article were countered by another editor (DualFreq) with explanations in the edit summaries. This evening this user made edits which seem to amount to vandalism, removing referenced material and replacing it with unreferenced material, and which were reverted by both DualFreq and by myself. When warned on the user's talk page to stop edit warring, the user ignored this warning and continued reverting. Omnedon (talk) 03:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

No comment on the original issue: but MichaelHolmes36 deleting this thread [240] doesn't look good... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment from a one-time editor and viewer I see no reason in this editor's editing. They added unnecessary spaces for a template. In addition they removed references in the history then adds the unreferenced section template which totally out of this world. I've seen the history and this user engages themselves in true edit warring by reverting whatever an editor reverted from their edit. I reverted their edit once from my part, but they have reverted me too. I want to revert again, but I believe I've reached my limit. This person needs to be stopped. This is vandalism from my perspective. Callmemirela (talk) 04:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Clear reverts, was warned. Kuru (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Haken arizona reported by User:Prisonermonkeys (Result: Protected )

Page: 2014 Russian Grand Prix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Haken arizona (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_Russian_Grand_Prix&diff=630898469&oldid=630898047

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [241]
2. [242]
3. [243]
4. [244]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [245]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [246]

Comments:
Haken arizona has repeatedly edited the "attendance" figures into this article, despite the use of questionable sources. His first, from ABC.net.au referred to attendance figures from the Saturday of the event, but was being used to support attendance figures from the Sunday of the event. His second source referred to a "near capacity crowd", but gives no indication to how near to capacity "near capacity" is. The issues with these sources have been repeatedly pointed out on the talk page, but he has made no effort to address the issues with his sources, instead declaring that they are acceptable despite one of his key arguments being that the journalist is unable to count everyone in attendance, thus demonstrating that it fails WP:VERIFIABLE. He has since taken to sitting on the page, reverting edits on sight and refusing to address the questions that gave been asked of him. Given that he was made aware of the issues several times and willingly ignored them, I considered the edits to be vandalism. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

This guy is totally out of line. Journalist will not go and count every seat to give specific down to one digit number. It is reported that the event was sold out to capacity, which means 55,000. Prisonermonkeys is out of line — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haken arizona (talk • contribs) 07:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

If the journalist cannot count every person in attendance—which makes the source unverifiable—why haven't you provided any evidence of the venue's capacity? You only have the journalist's word that the venue hosts 55,000, but as you just said, the journalist could not have counted all of them. And as far as I am aware, the venue only has 55,000 fixed seats, but there is a general access area that can host up to 10,000 people. So if that is accurate, then claiming the venue is at capacity with 55,000 spectators is off by nearly 20% of its total.

Again, this comes down to the fact that you have not reconciled the issues with your sources. I am not opposed to the inclusion of the attendance figures; I simply ask that you demonstrate reliability, verifiability and specificity in any source you post. You have ignored this, despite being made well aware of the issues on multiple occasions, and gave instead taken to trying to force the edits through by brute force—all of which could have been avoided if you had addressed the issues that were raised. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected You're both lucky not to be blocked, both of you violated WP:3RR. If this continues after protection expires, I will block you both. Dreadstar ☥ 08:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dreadstar: may I ask for clarification here? I reverted Haken arizona's edits because I felt they were vandalism. I pointed out the issues with his sources on the talk page before the edit warring began, and did so several more times once it started. Given his knowledge of the issues while editing that content in, and his refusal to address it, doesn't that qualify as vandalism? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Edits like this do not meet the criteria outlined in Wikipedia:Vandalism; and if you thought it was vandalism, then instead of uselessly edit warring, you should have reported it to the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism noticeboard. But I can tell from the source and by the language used by your fellow-edit-warrior, that the intent was not to harm WP. Haken Arizona's edits were not vandalism, and neither were yours - it was a simple content and WP:RS dispute that got out of hand. You two should have taken it to WP:RS/N or get a WP:3O, not bang heads, disrupting the article with edit warring. Dreadstar ☥ 10:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

No. A disagreement over the capacity of the venue is not vandalism, which is a quite different phenomenon, often involving the word "poop." Labeling a disagreement as vandalism will not help you to win an argument, and diminishes your credibility. Acroterion (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Um, yeah, what Acroterion said. Simpler than mine... :) Dreadstar ☥ 10:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you administration prisonermonkeys is totally out of line. comment added by Haken Arizona 24 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haken arizona (talk • contribs)

He's certainly no more out of line than you are. It would be a mistake to see this as a validation of your editing, or your preferred version of the article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

He was deleting my work and I was not touching his. It is clear he is a villain here. He has habit of doing this. Attendance data is accurate enough, and it should be there. prisonermonkeys should not be deleting well sourced data just because he wants to play editor warrior. I would like my attendance data added because that is what Wikipedia is all about, improving the quality of each article. Preceding unsigned comment added by Haken arizona — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haken arizona (talk • contribs) 04:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

You need to stop. You were edit warring and could have easily been blocked, but I tried what I thought would be a fair outcome and give you two a chance to correct your behavior. You're in a content dispute, which does not make either one a villain, it's what you do that counts. Follow WP:DR, if you two continue edit warring, I'll block both of you. Dreadstar ☥ 14:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Purpl9 reported by User:AndyTheGrump (Result: blocked indefinitely)

Page: Miracle Mineral Supplement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Purpl9 (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. [247]
2. [248]
3. [249]
4. [250]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [251]

See User talk:Purpl9 - this is a new account, but clearly not a new contributor. Despite repeatedly being told that sources regarding medical claims need to comply with WP:MEDRS, Purpl9 insists on citing a website promoting a conspiracy theory that the Red Cross is engaged in a coverup as a source for medical claims concerning 'Miracle Mineral Supplement' - a toxic (and on at least one occasion fatal) substance promoted as a 'cure' for HIV, malaria, and more or less every disease know to man. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] - none - I asked Purpl9 to use the talk page, to no effect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

And the edit-warring continues: [252] AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments:
Blocked indefinitely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked Maincorel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a likely sock- (or possibly meat-) puppet. The Maincorel account was created 8 minutes after Purpl was blocked, and 3 minutes after that made his first and only edit: a revert back to Purpl's version of the article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

And now another sock has turned up pushing the same crap at Chlorine dioxide [253] AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Einsteiniated (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades Skeptrubador (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I am afraid the user has engaged themselves into more suckpoppuetry by creating another user under the same edits summary about the Red Cross and whatnot. (Btw, I didn't know where to put this, so this was my only option). Callmemirela (talk) 05:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Cid Campeador3 reported by User:Amortias (Result: blocked 24 hours)

Page

El Clásico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Cid Campeador3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC) "Restoring referenced material"
2. 20:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC) "Restoring referenced material. Let's talk."
3. 20:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC) "Restoring the referenced material, please talk with me, I'm the only one who is using the talk page at the time"
4. 20:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC) "Your referenced material is a biased POV, and my referenced material assures this person told him that"
5. 20:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC) "The Independent and Syd Lowe don't prove anything in that reference, they are not reliable sources in this case, the jorunalist is recognized and ssures Barcelona player told him the truth."
6. 21:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC) "My reference, "Diariogol.com" is a legal and registered sport news site, owned by EDICIONES DIGITALES DEL DEPORTE SL, a limited company registered in Spain. It's as valid as Syd Lowe writings."
7. 21:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631107265 by Carlos Rojas77 (talk) My reference, "Diariogol.com" is a legal and registered sport news site, owned by a legaly registered company."
8. 21:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC) "I hope Amortias will try to bring an agreement between ourselves and not side with CarlosRojas77 in the edit war. My reference is as valid as Syd Lowe, Guardian, and Independent references."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on El Clásico. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I blocked Cid Campeador3 and then saw this. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 22:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Homeostasis07 reported by User:Lapadite77 (Result: no violation)

Page: Not Your Kind of People (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [254]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [255] (second revert from Not Your Kind of People page linked above)
2. [256] (first Control page revert)
3. [257] (second ^)
4. [258] (first Big Bright World page revert)
5. [259] (second ^)
6. [260] (first Blood For Poppies revert)
7. [261] (second ^)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [262]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [263] Control page: [264] (the exact same is stated in Big Bright World and Blood For Poppies talk pages).

Comments:
User has been reverting my recent edits on multiple pages of this band. He is not assuming good faith as evidenced in second diff provided here, and in the process is airing his personal reasons for dismissing such edit (the brief expansion of 2 quotes, for accuracy and balance, which are currently cherry-picked.) Apart from engaging in edit warring (in multiple pages, as linked above), he is engaging in and/or violating WP:TE, WP:NPOV, WP:CHERRYPICK. For context, user has a history of bias particularly against me, and shows no sign of wanting to consider views he disagrees with in the editing/discussion process, implicitly WP:OWN.

I'd like to note that user made the second reverts after responding to the sections I made on the talks pages of the songs (not the Not Your Kind of People album talk page), exemplifying he has no intention of considering it or engaging in anything but what he's already engaged in.
Adding: Reading over an older section on the album’s talk page, I realize Homeostasis07 has a personal bias against this album. It is strongly suggested in this section he dislikes the album and endorses the negative criticism of it. So, in my recent copy edit of the two quotes from two sources (diffs linked above), again to improve accuracy and balance, which he clearly does not want, the parts of the quotes he reverts/removes, particularly of the second quote, would suggest a less negative response (in how it's contextually stated) from the source than originally as presented. It puts his disagreement here (for this page), ergo his edit warring, in greater context. He even quoted in this section the negative part of the quote he supports. It is clear he does not want to expand the quote for context and accuracy because he has a personal bias here. --Lpdte77 (talk) 02:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, first thing's first, there's no third edit mentioned anywhere here. And I've explained the multiple issues I have with the source he's trying to use on the three separate song articles, in both the edit summaries and on the articles talk page's. This isn't disruptive editing or edit warring on my part, so should this user really have thrown an inappropriate 3RR warning on my talk page. For the record, this is the second time in as many months @Andrzejbanas: that Lapadite77's thrown an inappropriate warning at a user while in the middle of a discussion.

This entire thing in a nutshell: Lapadite77's been involved in two lengthy discussions about which genres to include on Garbage articles (here and here). He's a lone voice among at least a dozen editors who support the inclusion of genres he doesn't agree with. And now he wants to use this source ([265]) to cite three different articles as electronic rock, alternative rock and industrial rock, while even admitting that this source doesn't include what he's trying to attribute to it and accusing me of cherrypicking. And regarding his accusations of me having BADFAITH against him, that all stems from this discussion about Curve. I made two edits to that topic, and even though I was agreeing with his position, he still ended up making a soapbox reply where he effectively called me a biased Curve fan (in his post dated 02:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC) - I couldn't find the matching diff in the history). Homeostasis07 (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a 3RR. It is edit warring period (and there is such a thing as WP:1RR btw), pay attention. And I haven't been involved in genre disputes, everyone at that page has been involved in discussing disagreements between genres in the infobox, including RfC. You bringing up unrelated issues/pages says a lot, especially you pinging a user that has been involved in such disputes and might be biased against me (by nature of previous disagreements). "This isn't disruptive editing or edit warring on my part" - you're joking; It is especially on the NYKOP album reverts. The warning to Andrzejbanas's edits then was not by any means an inappropriate warning; it was specifically related to a couple of edits he has made at the time. It's even more blatant your bias against me. "He's a lone voice among at least a dozen editors who support the inclusion of genres he doesn't agree with" - a gross lie and misrepresentation. First, there's not a "least a zone editors" and the latest poll, which I created, consists of everyone agreeing on genres that will be included in the infobox there. Funny you don't mention the originator of the past poll's use of misleading content which was pointed out by editors other than myself. "while even admitting that this source doesn't include what he's trying to attribute to it and accusing me of cherry picking" - seriously, you must be joking. Anyone with reading comprehension sees there's no admittance of such kind and that my cherry picking comment is directly in reference to your NYKOP album quotes reverts. "And regarding his accusations of me having BADFAITH against him, that all stems from this discussion about Curve" - Interesting, you know what I'm thinking. In all actuality, again easily obvious to anyone actually following this, my bad faith comment here is in direct reference to your last edit summary on the album page: "You only want this entire quote here because it includes the words "electro-rock";" This user's bias against me is so ridiculous that after a few random ips were making edits he disagreed with, some disruptive, in one of those pages, he started persistently accusing me (out of all other editors) of being those ips. --Lpdte77 (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• No violation. Your best bet would be to continue your content dispute in the existing discussions on the article's talk pages. While I understand that genres are particularly ambiguous and the source of much frustration, there is no rush. Kuru (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@Kuru, the genres aren't the primary concern here. The recent album diffs that were first linked above (and expounded on in the second paragraph under Comments here) are. Why are those not mentioned? Why is the blatant edit warring (2 reverts of same information currently), rooted in cherry-picking and tendentious editing (as mentioned above), NOT a violation? Please explain directly. "Your best bet would be to continue your content dispute in the existing discussions on the article's talk pages" - there is none of that, as the reported user does not need that since he feels he can just revert what he disagrees with even if it's accurate and cited (as in the album page), clearly enabled by a post like yours. He has not bothered to consider the discussion created, and especially won't now, and in removing the noticeboard temp on his talk page, said: "That was quick.". I'd suggested he use a Request for Comment (as I'd done before on another page), and he has not bothered. So, please elaborate, as what your reply currently does is enable this WP:OWN-inspired edit warring, and suggests to other editors with his inclinations, and editors on the other end like myself, that it can just keep happening without any consequence. If you don't consider this blatant edit warring behavior, then I'd like another admin opinion here on the diffs presented. --Lpdte77 (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

User:50.103.148.57 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Blocked)

Page

Third-wave feminism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631027307 by Frosty (talk)"
2. 01:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631124117 by Frosty (talk)"
3. 04:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631134769 by EvergreenFir (talk)"
4. 04:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631141109 by EvergreenFir (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Third-wave feminism. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Dreadstar ☥ 04:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Adroit09 reported by User:Sitush (Result: Protected)

Page: List of Khandelwal Gotras (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Adroit09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [266]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [267]
2. [268]
3. [269]
4. [270]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [271]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [272]

Comments:

Note that there were similar problems involving this user on this article back in February 2014, as can be seen on the contributor's talk page. - Sitush (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The user has been making significant reverts without discussion [[273]]. A stand-alone article was redirected with clumsy explanations. On being confronted, the user has resorted to posting policy guidelines without looking into the matter. The basic Wiki belief of assuming good-faith has been violated. Also, before reverting, the user made no attempt to discuss on Talk:List of Khandelwal Gotras. The user Sitush has chosen to go for deletion of all the painstakingly put information in one go. Adroit09 (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

There have been past discussions, as I indicated above. There was also some related discussion at Talk:Khandelwal_Vaishya, where you were very misguided. - Sitush (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

You started with deleting all the content. [274] You then redirected it without discussing on Talk page. [275] I reverted the redirect [276]. You reverted it again citing references are not reliable. You didn't choose to use refimprove but decided to do a blank clean and redirect. Even after adding citations, you continue to revert first blindly and then citing clumsy reasons. The references are supposed to be judged on context WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. You could go through the edit history and summary here. [277] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adroit09 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I note that the article as shown at present is also a copyvio of this. It has long been established that caste associations are not reliable sources but violating their copyright really is beyond the pale. - Sitush (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

You decided to revert the article due to copyvio. However, the information being contested is in public domain and all the references contain similar information. [278][279][280] It is like saying List of Indian states and capital is copyright-violation. I would recommend you to use discretion and not act hastily without looking at the situation at hand. Also, you should have used copyvio template and discussed it before resorting to reverting. Anyway, I hope you constrain your over-zealousness. For the time being, I have restored it to the previous version.

Note, I don't say we shouldn't make any changes to the list. There is still some information missing which could be added from other sources. Also, the other details could be presented in a better way. But you don't need to delete the content for it. --Adroit09 (talk) 03:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Article protected for one month on the version prior to the edit war (last February). Sitush has pointed out that the present article content looks to be a copyright violation from a website operated by a caste association. Some of the material was also cited to a blog source. I'm leaving a notice of WP:GS/CASTE for User:Adroit09. EdJohnston (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

User:RioHondo reported by User:Unbuttered Parsnip (Result: Both blocked)

Page: Silion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RioHondo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [I use he/him/him throughout but it could equally be she/her/her]

Previous version reverted to: [281] Revision as of 08:05, 22 June 2014

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [282] Revision as of 14:38, 26 October 2014 NB time here is 8hrs ahead of UTC
2. [283] Revision as of 14:48, 26 October 2014
3. [284] Revision as of 14:49, 26 October 2014
4. [285] Revision as of 14:52, 26 October 2014
5. [286] Revision as of 14:53, 26 October 2014
6. [287] Revision as of 14:54, 26 October 2014
7. [288] Revision as of 15:06, 26 October 2014
8. [289] Revision as of 15:22, 26 October 2014
9. [290] Revision as of 15:39, 26 October 2014
10. [291] Revision as of 15:40, 26 October 2014
11. [292] Revision as of 15:42, 26 October 2014
12. [293] Revision as of 15:50, 26 October 2014

<-- I went to bed -->

1. [294] Latest revision as of 15:58, 26 October 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [295]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: just edit comment flames

Comments:
User has no facts to support his argument. His first reference indicates that there is a barangay in Bantayan, Cebu called Sillon. That is true, but irrelevant as barangay Sillon and Silion island are two different places. See map [296].
His second reference is to a newspaper article which if true would contradict his first reference (but I think it's a newspaper typo, and should refer to barangay Sillon).
His third reference, not a reliable source, refers to brgy Sillon, whose 2010 population according to his first source is 4064 His fourth reference also not a reliable source, also refers to brgy Sillon not Silion island.

You might care to take note of his response to my 3RR post [297] – some kind of veiled threat.

Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Mon 10:42, wikitime= 02:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• It's not edit warring when you add information supported by sources. Furthermore, all you did was simply revert all the sources I added, without even considering opening a discussion in the article's talk page since you are disputing those sources. This is the same IP user who annoys editors with his reverts and edits without even consulting them or trying to achieve consensus. See comments about user at WT:TAMBAY. Keep up with this attitude and you and all your IPs might get the ban you are seeking.--RioHondo (talk) 03:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It does not matter who's right and who's wrong, what this issue ultamitely boils down to is that both of you broke 3RR. In fact, I don't see either one of you trying to resolve this issue on the talk page seeing how this article does not even have one. "It's not edit warring when you add information supported by sources", after reading that I would encourage both of you to read WP:Edit Warring since that's not a valid excuse. I would not be supprised if both of you are blocked for 24 hours. AcidSnow (talk) 03:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 36 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

User:92.236.35.88 reported by User:Joshua Jonathan (Result: Semi)

Page: Ego death (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.236.35.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [298]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• link
• diff

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

Comments:

Despite being reported and warned, 92.236.35.88 continues to revert. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one month. The IP is continuing to blank material from the article while getting no support for that on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

User:QuackGuru reported by User:LesVegas (Result: declined)

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

Previous version reverted to: [299]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [300]
2. [301] and then [302]
3. [303]
4. [304]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: added this notice about edit warring in the edit summary and yet QuackGuru reverted again. and I recently posted this on his talk page and here he was recently warned by an administrator Just today, I counted his reverts, and he committed 4 on Acupuncture in a 24 hour period. Clearly, this user should know better.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[305] [306] and [307]

Comments:

QuackGuru has a long history of edit warring, and in fact, I had to report him only quite recently for violating the 3RR on acupuncture with 6 reverts. Then an administrator had to get involved on the page because of some gross incivility and edit warring and QuackGuru ducked onto another page for the time being, refusing to respond to my discussion with any specifics on talk here Now he is throwing out any reason possible for these well sourced edits to not stick, and won't work towards working out our differences on the talk page. He simply argues on talk and reverts on the article. Given that he was reported recently, blocked numerous times, and has been warned on his talk page a lot lately, such as here here edit warring here and the list goes on (QuackGuru deletes all warnings from his talk page) I thought he would've learned his lesson, but sadly he is back at it. LesVegas (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Note. If you refer to another report here, please give us a link to it. I assume you mean this report filed in early October. As far as I can tell, no action was taken based on that report. I don't even see comments posted to the report by an administrator. Back to the present. I count three reverts by QG, which is not a breach of 3RR. The situation is, of course, complicated by the discretionary sanctions per WP:ARBPS, which I assume apply to this article. I'll let another administrator address that aspect of the problem if they wish to.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• I too count 3 reverts, though I am seeing some pretty aggressive editing (warring up to 3RR and then slipping in some bold edits). Looks like the filer has 2 reverts, and a whole bunch of other people have 1 revert in an unrelated edit war. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The tag was removed multiple times and the previous concerns were addressed. See Talk:Acupuncture/Archive_15#The_tag_was_removed_multiple_times.

• Takahashi, Toku (2011). "Mechanism of Acupuncture on Neuromodulation in the Gut-A Review". Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface. 14 (1): 8–12. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1403.2010.00295.x. ISSN 1094-7159. PMID 21992155.

Text that is in article: "Health is viewed by traditional acupuncturists as a balance of yin and yang, sometimes equated to the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems.[3][177]" See Acupuncture#Theory. See diff. There is no reason to add redundant text to the article.

• Langevin, Helene M. (2014). "Acupuncture, Connective Tissue, and Peripheral Sensory Modulation". Critical Reviews in Eukaryotic Gene Expression. 24 (3): 249–253. doi:10.1615/CritRevEukaryotGeneExpr.2014008284. ISSN 1045-4403. PMID 25072149.

• Zhao, Zhi-Qi (2008). "Neural mechanism underlying acupuncture analgesia". Progress in Neurobiology. 85 (4): 355–375. doi:10.1016/j.pneurobio.2008.05.004. ISSN 0301-0082. PMID 18582529.

Current text: "A 2014 review stated that despite ample controversy encircling the validity of acupuncture as a modality, developing literature on its physiological effects in animals and humans is giving new views into the basic mechanisms for acupuncture needling.[196] The same review proposed a model combining both connective tissue plasticity and peripheral sensory modulation as a needle response for acupuncture's physiological effects.[196] The evidence indicates that acupuncture-induced pain relief effect has physiological, anatomical and neurochemical origins.[197] The mechanism of action for acupuncture is still unclear.[198] Evidence suggests that acupuncture generates a sequence of events that include the release of endogenous opioid-like substances that modulate pain signals within the central nervous system.[198]"

The sources are already in the article. LesVegas added the same sources that are already summarised in the same section.[308]. There is a separate article for electroacupuncture. The information that is too technical is not appropriate for the general reader. The technical information goes against the clear wording of WP:MEDMOS of writing to a general audience.I explained this on the talk page. See Talk:Acupuncture#POV. QuackGuru (talk) 04:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• This edit is not a revert, since it's not an undo of anything from the past two weeks which is when I stopped looking. Removing messages on your own talkpage generally isn't actionable. I count only two reverts on the article so far followed by an empty edit asking to go to talk, so I'm closing this as declined. — east718 | talk | 16:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you very much for looking this over! Going two weeks back into the history is quite a feat, given how frequently the page is edited. QuackGuru has a history of making multiple major edits at once, which certainly isn't any more a violation of policy than is deleting constant warnings from his talk page , but is just his MO. Anyway, I should have made you aware of it, because it appears in This edit you might have overlooked his removal of a POV tag which was contested on talk. And this edit was also a bit tricky, because QuackGuru moved the edit to another part of the page first, then afterwards justified his edit because it was now a duplication. My edit was here and QuackGuru moved it and then removed it here. He makes multiple major edits as once frequently, and tries creating a maze in his editing patterns so I can see why it's easy to make a mistake in counting. LesVegas (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Doc James reported by User:AlbinoFerret (Result: Both warned)

Page: Electronic cigarette (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Doc James (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [309]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [310]
2. [311]
3. [312]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [313]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [314]

Comments:
I changd the order of the page after adding a section because a comment left by someone in a rfc above pointed out that the order wasnt correct, but the order of the sections was not part of the rfc. I made a comment in the edit that it was to changed it how the order of the lede. Doc James reverted without any reasoning in the comments to the edit to the old order. I copied in the section in order to change it back it back and didnt even finish because its a big edit and I needed to do it in stages because of the size of my screen. I warned him he had made 2 reverts in 24 hours and the 3rr rule. I then was able to revert oncefor a second time. He then reverted it for a third time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbinoFerret (talk • contribs) 17:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)changes His actions may not violate the 3 revert rule. But they are clearly edit warring, even making changes before the final editing was done in the second instance, the version he reverted had not existed before, so that was no way to know what the end product would have been, he just wanted his version. He even continued to edit war after warning others not to do it.AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC) The ac

Comment: The Electronic Cigarette article has been unusually contentious, with multi-day arguments on the Talk page regarding issues as simple as whether to use the word "vapor" or "aerosol". It would be nice to find a solution for this as it contributes to a negative atmosphere. AlbinoFerret and KimDabelsteinPetersen have taken particularly opinionated roles in this discussion, and I am surprised to see the accusation of edit warring here given that in Kim's own words the two of them just tag teamed to "Use up Doc Jame's reversions" and thus "win a edit war".Formerly 98 (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I was of the opinion that discussion was part of the wikipedia process. And since when is having opinions on something a negative? Sorry, but there are several sides to this issue, and none of them are WP:FRINGE or alt-med related. And Nope. I didn't tag-team anything. (my revert was at 17:58[315], the comment that you claim is tagteam buildup was at 19:50[316] after i had i realized what had happened (which was at 18:06[317] (18:02 actually when i read Doc James claim that i edit-warred))) --Kim D. Petersen 22:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

What is curious though User:Formerly 98].. is that you revert (continue the edit war) after you posted that comment[318] - i'm shocked (not really, but i should be). --Kim D. Petersen 22:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Response So first of all the long standing version of the article is this one [319], which is the one I was restoring. It is not the one mentioned at "previous version reverted to"

User:AlbinoFerret change the content here Oct 25th at 01:27 [320]

Than when reverted, restored it again and again

At 16:24 on Oct 25th they were warned on their talk page regarding edit warring.[321]

At 16:30 they placed a warning on my talk page [322]

Earlier that day they had already WP:CANVASSED for support here [323] asking User:KimDabelsteinPetersen to support them. Kim than reverted at 16:58 [324]

I requested that they get consensus first before this controversial change in both the edit summary and here [325] at 16:27

Another concern is that AlbinoFerret is current more or less a WP:SPA [326] as are a few others.

Additionally there is no 4th diff listed above.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the time stamp of the so called "canvas" it was the night before after I finished a major edit of the article. I only asked Kim to look at the page to see if the NPOV problems were gone enough to remove a banner she had placed on the article. I never asked kim to do anything or give any type of support. I was basically looking for her to look at what I had done. She has been an editor on the page for a long time and I respect her opinions. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I am far from a single purpose account. While the e-ciagerette article has taken a lot of my available time lately. I have edited a wide range of topics and I have even created a article in the about an art glass company. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• If anything, boomerang. I see that Doc James made the first attempt to resolve things despite claims to the contrary. AlbinoFerret and Kim need to cease reverting during discussion. This comes across as battleground mentality.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the order of events.

• Doc James does the first revert at 9:07 diff#1

• I revert the page because no reason is given, no talk page section on it exists. diff#2
• Doc James Reverts that at 9:24 diff#3
• I later found out that instantaneously Doc James places a edit warring template on my user page also at 9:24 but does not discuss the issues why, but he keeps reverting.diff#4
• Doc James starts a section on the e-cigarette talk page at 9:27 but I wont see it. diff#4
• I change the page 9:30-932 I revert it a second time. diff#5
• I go get a cup of coffee.
• Doc James reverts the changes again at 9:33. diff#6
• At 9:34 Doc james starts talking after he has reverted again and again finally placing it on a page I get notifications on. diff#7
• I came back with my coffee and saw the notification thing at the top blinking. I have stopped editing the page at that point and went to discuss the problem at 9:39. diff#8

Two reverts and then stopping to discuss while the other editor keeps reverting? I dont see a boomerang. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• @KimDabelsteinPetersen: Just to set the record straight, a simple examination of my contribution history shows that I did not "revert (continue the edit war) after you posted that comment". I reverted (I agree this was probably a poor decision) and later came over to comment here. Its easy to make this type of error and I understand that. But part of the problem here has been the attitude exemplified by your comment "i'm shocked (not really, but i should be)." There is a pattern of not only failing to seek consensus, but also of making belittling and insulting comments whenever someone disagrees with you. It is fine to criticize behavior, but when comments are directed at the character, good will, or intelligence of those you should be engaging with, it is very unhelpful and contrary to what we are trying to accomplish here. Formerly 98 (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

  @Formerly 98:|Yes, i'm sorry. You are correct. You placed the comment on this board almost an hour after you reverted. I was misreading the times, because there is an hour between the dates i see on diffs and the ones that gets timestamped. Once more i'm sorry about that. Please take a look at your assumption of tag-teaming with the diffs i provided in mind now. --Kim D. Petersen 01:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

In another dispute, I removed original research and replaced it with sourced text. I clearly explained this in my edit summary the problems with the article. I expanded the safety section a bit and a few editors did not like that. For no good reason, User:KimDabelsteinPetersen blindly replacing sourced text with original research in a revert and User:AlbinoFerret blindly reverted back in the original research and other problems. There are long term issues with both User:AlbinoFerret and User:KimDabelsteinPetersen. If admins want to fix the problems they should show them the door. QuackGuru (talk) 02:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Look who is canvassing[327][328] his teammates. Hmm. QuackGuru (talk) 05:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Both of them are currently actively editing that article (both within the past 24 hours). I don't think that fits the definition of canvassing. Arzel (talk) 06:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

There's more to that older dispute than Quack would have you hear [329]. It's a bit more along the lines of pots and kettles... Mihaister (talk) 07:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly Arzel, they are very active editors on the page. I only asked them to look at the talk page, and I only asked two. Very far from canvassing. But what we do have is an example of QuackGuru's concept of guidelines. Twist them to the point of breaking. He does that with Original Research to try and stop any changes to the words he puts in. The problem is a lot of his edits are copyright problems.AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

To avoid any further false accusations of canvassing, I have went down the history for three pages and notified all the editors who have made an edit to the page who have not commented. I only excluded ip addresses. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Doc James continues to work at winning his version of the article. He started a biased phrased RFC, only listed it in the medical categorydiff. When I posed comments pointing this out and offered a alternate phrasing he moved mine and other editors comments on the talk page going against WP:TPOC. AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah really the "medical category". Can you please show me what this medical category is as last time I checked there was NO medical category for RfCs? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Nice CANVASSING here [330] especially seeing they weighed in a couple of hours later Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Both Doc James and AlbinoFerret are Warned against edit warring further in the article and for ratcheting up the level of discourse. AlbinoFerret is hardly blameless in any of this, but I'm not going to look to see who started what when. The net result is disruptive to the article. There's at least one complaint AlbinoFerret makes with which I agree, and that is the comment Doc James left on the medical project, which is not appropriate. It may indeed be acceptable to notify relevant projects of a dispute, but the notification must be neutral, and Doc James's comment was not only not neutral but did not even sum up the nature of the content dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I have only did a minor edit to the page today and did not edit after I got the reasoning from Doc James on my talk page yesterday. I did not revert but only added one word. I am very frustrated at what I see as a corruption of the RFC process to try and manipulate the results. I have only notified editors that have edited the page in about the last week or so and did not selectively notify other than to exclude editors only using IP addresses. Am I blameless in all of this? Maybe not, but the talk pages and rfc are designed to help fix the problem. The only thing thats happened is that its made it worse and created a new problem. The false canvassing accusations are another matter, The WP:CANVASS page clearly says its on to tell other editors who have edited the article about an RFC. I even notified people I had good reason to believe would agree with Doc James. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

In the very beginning you only notified your teammates.[331][332] After editors commented you were canvassing then you notified other editors. QuackGuru (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

They are not my teammates, I am not part of a team, and your continued posting of false accusations is in violation of assuming good faith. There is no time limit on when a notification is to be completed. Even if I only notified the two you are pointing out, they are active editors of the article and would have see the page eventually. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Do they[333][334] support your view close to 99% of the time? Are you part of the pro e-cig advocates on Wikipedia? Do you think it is "harmless vapor" and the article should reflect that despite the reviews to the contrary? User:Orange Suede Sofa stated "Now that I read the discussion, it looks like inappropriate canvassing."[335] User:Orange Suede Sofa was referring to this this edit. QuackGuru (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Regardless if they agree with me or not on a talk page. There is no team involved. There is no discussing of strategy. We do not edit other pages together. unlike some people who support you in your constant disruptions to articles and edit warring. I think its really interesting that a person with a long list of banns is accusing people of doing wrong without any evidence of anything contrary to policy. Notifying editors who have edited an article about a RFC is ok.

Secondly, It is no surprise that I disagree with you and others on so called canvasing. The edit was to the Village Pump, the RFC guidelines state the Village pump is a site that can be used to notify the community about an rfc. That another editor thought my rephrase of the rfc question was wrong, I feel the original text of the RFC is biased. Doc James who was warned about not edit warring even moved my comments on the talk page in violation of talk page guidelines. I have since edited the rephrase in response to other editors concerns. But only offering the desired outcome of the editor who started the RFC in the original wording of the RFC is wrong. It should have contained the options from both viewpoints, As the results show it is a popular viewpoint. I think I want to add another article to my list of ones I want to edit, perhaps acupuncture would be nice. AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

User:190.203.140.28 reported by User:98.21.60.198 (Result: Alerted; later semi-protected)

Page: Quneitra Governorate clashes (2012–2014) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 190.203.140.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [336]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [337]
2. [338]
3. [339]
4. [340]
5. [341] (Made after alert was issued)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [342]

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

Comments:

I have tried to avoid an edit war regarding this topic by addressing it on the article's talk page. However, this user continues to revert other users' changes without discussing the topic on the talk page. I request that this user be blocked from further edits, as his edits can be considered libelous. 98.21.60.198 (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Note. The edits by 190.203.140.28 are disruptive, particularly considering the articles they are editing. However, on this article and others I looked, the IP has not even violated WP:1RR as the edits are spaced too far apart. I've alerted the IP to the existence of the Syrian civil war sanctions so they may be sanctioned for disruption if they persist.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • User 190.203.140.28 made a 5th revert (shown above in the diffs list) after the alert was issued at 20:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC). This user still refuses to address his concerns on the talk page after I kindly asked him to do so. His refusal to address the issue on the talk page after being asked multiple times has become disruptive, and his actions need to be investigated.98.21.60.198 (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23 IP has now breached 1rr, after being made aware. Murry1975 (talk) 19:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Due to the additional reverts since Bbb23's closure, I've semiprotected Quneitra Governorate clashes (2012–2014) and 2014 Quneitra offensive for one month each. Any admin may revise this if they disagree. The 190.* IP has been alleging Israeli involvement in the Syrian Civil War but without providing any sources. EdJohnston (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Felino123 reported by User:Gregkaye (Result: No action)

Page: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Felino123 (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. [344] Revision as of 08:45, 25 October 2014 by P123ct1
2. [345] Revision as of 13:50, 26 October 2014 by Felino123
3. [346] Revision as of 16:25, 26 October 2014 by Gregkaye
4. [347] Revision as of 08:54, 27 October 2014 by Felino123

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

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

Comments: The page is 1RR and the user is acquainted with 1RR proceedings through my current case at AN/I.

referral.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment:

Gregkaye is continuously disrupting this article against the consensus. He said the word "jihad" should not be there because his particular Islamic sources should veto our usage. This has been discussed and the consensus agreed to keep using this word. He continuously removes the word, adds footnotes or moves it in order to change its meaning on the sentence, without asking anyone. He's been reported for this, but he keeps disrupting this article, and many users support a topic ban. I just reverted these disruptions without violating reverting rules (I think I didn't violate them). It seems that he just wants to get rid of me, not to talk, to agree or to reach a consensus. I think I didn't violate any rule (if I did I'm sorry). I have been contributing to ISIL article in a neutral way and not imposing my POV, and I have never violated any rule (if I have violated a rule now, then this is the first time). I think I don't deserve any ban or anything like that. If I have violated a rule, then I am sorry, I didn't know that, it wasn't knowingly. In that case I will never do it again.Felino123 (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

While I believe the above statement to be true, the WP:3RRNO only exempt "obvious' vandalism" or "Reverting actions performed by banned users", neither of which strictly apply. I do believe that Felinino123 was acting the in best interests in the Wiki and should only be warned for a technical violation and both parties encouraged to use the talk page, dispute resolution, and if needed mediation instead of resorting to this.~Technophant (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Technophant, can I point out that the only references made to "disruption" both in the talk page and in the AN/I have been made solely by you and Felino123. You were never involved in the discussion and then choose to gratuitously plaster the word around with frequent rhetorical repetition. Your accusations of edit warring are of a similarly laughable nature. However in this case the fact is that two editors had made changes in one direction against which Felino123 took unilateral in reversion. On what basis do you make your statement regarding the "best interests in the Wiki"? In my AN/I your only statement was, "Keep in mind that this article has a strict 1RR policy". You also say (but without admitting your being wrong) "both parties encouraged to use the talk page, dispute resolution, and if needed mediation instead of resorting to this". As you know this action was taken at your suggestion. You even considered that I might have already taken this action.

@EdJohnston: I suggest that it would be in the genuine best interests of the wiki for Technophant to be watched. Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Result: No action. It is unclear whether this series of edits is actually a 1RR violation. Both Gregkaye and Felino123 seem to be right on the edge. I would encourage both of them to wait for consensus before changing any sentences that contain the word 'jihadist.' In the ANI thread Gregkaye seems to be apologizing for a 'technical 1RR violation.' If we forgive him for that, I don't think this case can be closed with a block of Felino123. EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)