Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive197

User:Arthur Rubin reported by User:MrX (Result: No violation, wrong forum)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: "It's synthesis to have this much, but "namecalling" is not specifically sourced for this organization."
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert: (admitted edit warring; self-reverted when warned)
 * 4th revert: (self-reverted, but tag bombed the lead)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Illinois Family Institute

Comments:

While this user has not strictly broken the 3RR, I believe the examples above highlight the latest in a larger pattern of disruptive editing which I first warned the user about here User talk:Arthur Rubin

Notably, the user has made few if any actual contributions to these articles, instead seeming to prefer to police them for perceived bias and then argue both against consensus and against reliable, verified sources.

Other examples where this user has removed sourced content from articles about designated hate groups, (falsely) claiming that the content is unsourced. In each case, the sources can be verified and usually are direct quotes:

AFTAH MassResistance Southern Poverty Law Center Public Advocate of the United States Parents Action League
 * September 14, 2012:"It's synthesis to have this much, but "namecalling" is not specifically sourced for this organization."
 * September 18, 2012:""reason" is still unsourced. As you added back the default reason, within any justification, I'm removing the entire thing until it can be specifically sourced"
 * September 17, 2012: " additional information not in any of the sources yet provided"
 * September 17, 2012: "Hate group designation: still not in citation.  Please stop synthesizing" (except it is in the source)
 * September 17, 2012: "It's not in the source. Please learn to read."
 * September 9, 2012: tag bombing
 * August 23, 2012: "unless the "hate group" designation is more important than what the organization stands for, it shouldn't be in the lede"
 * September 17, 2012: tagging and (unwarranted) attribution
 * September 19, 2012: overtagging (even re-introducing a biased statement with a misspelling in the tag)
 * September 17, 2012:Talk:Parents Action League - discussion related to above edits

I think this editor's objectivity may be clouded by some unknown bias that is evident in his edit history. He consistently tries to raise the bar for inclusion on certain articles. When multiple supporting sources are documented and consensus trends against his arguments, his arguments then morph into WP:POV, WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE, followed by overtagging articles with dubious maintenance tags.

I do not propose a block for this user however, given his tenure and role as an admin, he should know better than to engage in disruptive, tendentious editing. A temporary topic ban may be warranted. – MrX 17:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * MrX (and others) are using synthesis to insert unsourced material. I'm not going to discuss the clear bias by the reporter in this former, but almost all of the examples I'm removing or commenting on consist of combining
 * SPLC says group X is an anti-gay hate group.
 * (SPLC): that groups are generally called (anti-gay) "hate groups" because of X, Y, and Z
 * to produce
 * SPLC says group X is an anti-gay hate group because "X, Y, and Z".
 * This is just wrong, even if the two statements are in the same source. It should be clear to anyone who actually looks at the edits that the statements that they are attributing to SPLC are not in any of the sources, and many of the statements made about SPLC are not in any sources except SPLC.
 * A topic ban might be warranted against the nominator, and a couple other editors. But I wasn't going to propose one without sufficient evidence.  Almost all of my "reverts" are reverts of misquotes or synthesis of sources.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I reluctantly accept, for the moment, the assertion that SPLC is generally reliable, even though no actual argument was presented on WP:RSN. (The history of discussions on RSN lead from (1) arguments than SPLC is generally reliable as an organization of experts, but without indication of fact-checking; hence reliable, but not necessary BLP-reliable to (2) assertions that the previous consensus was that SPLC is BLP-reliable.)  That doesn't mean we should synthesize multiple SPLC statements to construct statements about their reasoning, or that we should reinterpret their statements.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it is not wrong. SPLC defines a category of wrongdoing, and then fills the category with list members. The list members are of course in the list because they meet the definition—there is no synthesis. Frequently, the SPLC gives additional material to tell the reader specific examples of wrongdoing, but that is frosting on the cake. Without that elaboration it is enough to make a general statement that the article topic group has been named a hate group because of its actions that meet the definition. Binksternet (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Arthur has seven previous blocks for edit-warring, and seems to do an awful lot of reverting and not a lot else (I only looked at his last hundred or so edits though). Seem like this might be worth a longer look. --John (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Over the past few days I have over 100 reverts of IPs determined to be a blocked editor. In this topic, I may be reverting edits when I should be removing the entire sections which include the edits, or tagging the information as unsourced.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * When looking at his edits, I suggest looking at the topics about the SPLC, or in any way connected with it, such as articles about hate groups. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment In the multiple discussions created on this topic, repeatedly the term "role as an admin" or similar comes up. Looking through the edits above no administrative tools were used nor was the rollback feature. There is no administrative abuse in this case. As for the contentious content mentioned here, its worth noting The SPLC source uses the phrase "anti-gay" explicitly 18 times in the cited article. Fairly specific terminology. While WP:BLPGROUP applies, its worth mentioning that "Editors who repeatedly add or restore contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced may be blocked for disruption. ..To whatever extent the BLP policy applies to edits in this particular case. IMHO--Hu12 (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Noone has claimed that anything was done with admin tools. We do expect admins to behave well though, per WP:NOTPERFECT, and I don't think anyone is suggesting removing the bit. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I clicked on a few of MrX's diffs and they look like reasonable edits to me. For example, this (moving a "hate group" description from the lede to a criticism section) on the face of it seems perfectly fine per WP:WEIGHT.   This looks like a valid de-SYNTHing though it might have been better to separate out the two sourced statements and include both rather than eliminating one.  MrX mentions the possibility that Arthur Rubin is editing from an "unknown bias".  There is a saying about WP:NPOV that while everyone has biases, if you're editing neutrally then those biases should be hard to identify.  So the "unknown bias" comment corroborates a theory that Arthur is editing neutrally, which is what we should be hoping for.  My general impression of Arthur Rubin is that he's a usually-good editor who occasionally gets overheated, but I'm unpersuaded that anything like that is going on at the moment.  Overall the complaint makes me more suspicious of MrX than of Arthur Rubin. 69.228.171.70 (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Moving material from the lead and hiding it in the main article in a consistent pattern against the SPLC isn't "perfectly fine". Then the edit warring to remove categories as well: . Should admins be expected to continue the edit war of other editors ? I know these are from 2 weeks ago, but they fit the overall pattern. Is this topic under the community sanctions? Also, he did start to edit war: "Thinking it over, I am going to edit-war.  That phrasing is not supported by any of the 3 references.  The third says something similar, but doesn't attribute it to the SPLC.  The first two say nothing of the sort.  And why was "anti-gay" removed?", which he self reverted half an hour later: , after this discussion . IRWolfie- (talk) 10:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, who are you? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @IRWolfie: I understand your concern, but it always makes me nervous when people say stuff like "moving material from the lead and hiding it in the main article". In my experience phrases like that are too often used as straw man arguments against WP:Weight. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry but you have just deflected on some irrelevant part of my comment and not actually addressed anything I have said. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Queries Where a source does not directly support a claim, does it require a clear consensus to note the fact that the claim is unsupported? Where a group is small in size, does WP:BLP enter in at some point where a "contnetious claim" requires substantial sourcing?  How small is the dividing line?  And where an opinion is given about such a group, ought the opinion be given in the lede, or is it proper that such opinions be given in the body of the article where the opinion is from a single source, and not from multiple independent sources (positing that a single cource used in 1000 newspapers remains a single source for an opinion)?   Where edit war is asserted, is a laundry list of all articles edited by that person utile where the reverts in question are in one specific article?  I rather think these questions should be answered by anyone seeking to resolve this complaint.   I would also suggest the current incarnation of the edit  making a specific comment about a single living person, "the discreditied theories of Paul Cameron",  requires more than the opinion source now given per WP:BLP (I assert the SPLC is an opinion sourse, staing its opinions, and not a source of objective fact)  and should not thus be given in the lede in a prominent manner.  Collect (talk) 11:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment In my experience, Arthur raises the bar arbitrarily high when it comes to sources that say things he doesn't agree with and is more than willing to revert over and over again to keep these sources out. If he were consistent in his high standards, I'd conclude that he had his heart in the right place but was a bit overzealous. As it stands, it's clear that he is very selective about resisting sources and has arrived at conclusions about reliability that differ from community standards. Most notably, he joins the right-wing fringe in discounting the SPLC. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I believe that Arthur is editing fairly and with NPOV. He should have the communities support. --131.109.101.13 (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I only looked at the first diff in this complaint and believe Arthur was de-SYNTHing in good faith. There were two sources for the wiki text, "In 2009, IFI was designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center on the grounds that it is 'heavily focused on attacking gay people and homosexuality n general.'"


 * Regarding the first source, it does not support our text's claim that the IFI was listed (past tense) as a hate group, because the source pre-dates the actual listing.  In addition, although the the internal quote above does indeed come from the first source, it was taken out of context.  The source was just characterizing the IFI, and if you read the entire document you find that source #1's opening italciized paragraph explicitly offers a different reason for listing IFI as a hate group.


 * Regarding the second source, our cite itself has a quote that also offers a different reason for listing IFI as a hate group, i.e., a very specific reason other than the sweeping generalized remark that IFI "heavily focused on attacking gay people and homosexuality n general." I'm not saying this quoted text is untrue, I'm saying the two sources in the complaint's first diff did not support that quoted language and actually offered a different reason for the hate group listing.


 * I agree with Arthur that in terms of the diff listed above, the sources did not support the text he reverted. I have not reviewed this complaint in terms of wikietiquette other than to say I don't think going to ANI is a good way to try to defend SYNTH.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal - Please see User talk:Arthur Rubin for conversation about how this is not the case. Basically, the source has a heading that applies to all hate groups, so it's not synthesis to apply it to this particular one. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Not a violation; declining. This is a matter that can be handled via further discussion and fluid editing. I would view blocking as more taking a side in what is a fairly good faith content dispute. NW ( Talk ) 02:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * To remind you, MrX wrote, "I do not propose a block for this user". What he did request was for Arthur to be warned. I can only hope that Arthur takes all of this feedback as a warning. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see any place that he requested a warning, please provide diffs. Unscintillating (talk) 05:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that a warning would be appropriate here. Pass a Method talk  11:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A topic ban is not possible in this area, and I am not going to give a warning (I mostly focused on the diffs and missed that line last time). I see poor edits by Arthur and good edits by him. For me to warn him about what I perceive to be poor edits would almost certainly be crossing the Rubicon some sort of line and ruling on content. NW ( Talk ) 00:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

As you wish. But I do have a follow-up question: If you decline to warn him and believe this is the wrong forum, what would the right forum be? I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

(This is not a purely theoretical question, as his behavior has not improved.) I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Jimbo Wales and others reported by User:Müdigkeit (Result: Protected 3 days)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * My revert:
 * revert by User:Eleventhblock:
 * revert by User:RA0808:
 * 1st revert:
 * 1st revert by User:Fram:
 * revert by User:Jayen666:
 * 2nd revert by User:Fram:
 * 2nd revert:

Discussion on his talk page:user talk:Jimbo Wales

Comments: Although nobody made more than 2 reverts, it is clear that this is an editwar.--Müdigkeit (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You reported Jimbo :D --Wüstenfuchs 13:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not closing this as I've commented on Jimbo's talkpage and could be considered "involved," but I consider this to be a frivolous report. Jimmy's edits were amply justified for all the reasons discussed there, and in any case, discussion continues on the article talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Dirk Beetstra T C 13:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * (e/c) Good grief. Lots of edit warring by people who should know better. I've fully protected for 3 days to allow consensus to form on the talk page. If *any* (hint) admin makes any edits that are not extremely uncontroversial without consensus, they will be blocked. People outside WP are watching this page, so it's a bad time for everyone to act like children. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not agree that this is an "edit war". It is normal routine editing accompanied by a constructive discussion on the talk page.  Protection in this case is counterproductive.  You've frozen it to my own version, so perhaps I should be happy with that, but I actually think that progress is being made towards a compromise version.  Please reconsider.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not an edit war? Take a look again, please. Once there is consensus for a compromise version on the talk page, or consensus that protection is no longer needed, then protection can be lifted. That's how it works for the mere mortals, seems reasonable to handle it that way here too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Objectively, if I had been on the stick at WP:RFPP and this came over, and it was no names that I recognized, I would be hesitant to full protect. 3 total reverts from multiple editors isn't exactly a full blown edit war, and isn't that uncommon for editors to bounce around a few edits then for it to settle down, all part of the editing process.  Not the same as two editors ping/ponging past 3RR. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 16:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Eight reverts, actually. But if you really wouldn't have protected a "normal" article with 8 reverts in 24 hours, then feel free to unprotect. Like you, I'm more than willing to have an uninvolved admin change whatever I do, without needing my OK first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't see but 15 edits in three days and four were double edits, for a net of 11 edit cycles in 72 hours. I'm not saying there isn't contention or that you "shouldn't have" so I am sorry if it seemed that way. Protection was a valid option even if it wouldn't have been my first choice.   Fram and Jimmy both had two reverts (plus Jimmy's first edit), and maybe no one likes to throw a template on Jimmy's page, but dragging him to AN3 certainly isn't a better option at 2RR. Again, grey area and I just felt like the likelihood of it escalating too much further wasn't that great.  And yes, I've seen 8RR that I've protected, or that I've blocked for,or that I've just talked to the participants, depending on those particular circumstances.  It's no shocker that I'm not a lover of "bright line" rules. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 17:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Whilst I'm sure the subject did tell Jimbo this, and it's correct, Jimbo should really know that this is the very definition of original research without reliable sources. Sigh. Black Kite (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll admit that was my initial reaction as well, but c'mon. In some cases primary sources are acceptable. All policies are marked at the top with the advice that they are subject to "common sense and the occaisional exemption" How somebody spells their name would probably be be one of those. On top of that, there are actually sources that back Jimbo's edit, more so now that this incident itself has been commented on in the press. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I would have been impressed and delighted if Jimbo had shown her the cool way instead: registering, boldly making the change herself, with an inline citation to her website or a supporting independent RS, noting in Talk her preference with reference to WP:BLP, and finally filing with OTRS from her own email address re the change. --Lexein (talk) 06:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And if she didn't want to be shown all that? There seems to be a belief amongst some Wikipedians that everyone else should fix your project for you and jump through every hoop you require, or else just have to put up with whatever you write about them. It's a seriously vile attitude. (Apologies if you were being sarcastic... true believers on Wikipedia and those that parody them fall under Poe's Law) 92.39.201.50 (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen a single source so far that really back his edit. I have commented on the talk page of the article that articles that state that he was born "William Adams" don't prove or back anything, as the same can be found for pretty much every celebrity with a pseudonym (I gave the examples of Sting and Bono): sources will give them as "born First Name Last Name", omitting the middle name(s), all the time. Obviously, this doesn't mean that the middle name in this case is correct or existing, but it isn't evidence of the opposite either. The fact that the middle name only seems to appear in sources after our article was created is much more damning though. Fram (talk) 07:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Vjmlhds reported by User:Grapple X (Result: Blocked for 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * . To be honest, it's easier to link to page history; I count ten reverts tonight alone.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:. Warning was given here as I entered into a discussion which was already ongoing and felt it easier to warn there than with a template drop.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A. This is simple page blanking and should not need discussed.

Comments:


 * This is a case of constant page blanking as the reported user has taken a warped approach to NPOV, believing that no one article should be better than articles on similar subjects and to improve only one is wrong. Coupled with accusations of "fanboy"ism thrown at the productive editor involved in improving the page in question, this is clearly a blatant bad-faith campaign. GRAPPLE   X  01:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You know what...I don't care anymore...it's not worth the hassle...do whatever you want to the article. Vjmlhds 01:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've blocked Vjmhlds for 72 hours...but I've also blocked User:TBrandley for the same amount of time. Both of them went far far beyond 3RR, and this was not a case of vandalism where there's a 3RR exception. I can't block one person and not the other. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * While User:TBrandley did exceed 3RR, I would have felt the edits he was reverted constituted vandalism; it was the mass blanking of uncontroversial reliably-sourced material. This wasn't a case of two versions of a page being warred over, but of one user blanking large swathes of material just because they didn't like seeing one article be improved over others; a level of spitefulness which clearly constitutes bad faith. GRAPPLE   X  14:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

User:GeorgeLouis reported by User:Rhode Island Red (Result: Stale + note)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: There have been subsequent edits to the article so please see comments for recommended action.


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: and edit summaries

Comments:

There's a conflict coming to a head over at the Frank Vandersloot BLP regarding the improper inclusion of a partisan Heritage Foundation video that is rife with serious allegations about third parties (including the President and several others) and clearly violates WP:BLP. I've removed it from the article but one editor keeps on putting it back and ignoring the BLP violation. I've pointed out the issue in my edit summaries and on the Talk page, so it's now a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on the other editor's part. I just left a lengthy explanation, again, as to why the video violates BLP, and although policy states that it should be immediately removed, I didn't want to be the one to pull the plug again lest the other editor starts squawking about a 3RR violation, so I'm asking for some immediate assistance to remove the external link in the article to the video ASAP. I've also posted this notice on the the BLP noticeboard.

Regrettably, this is the type of conflict over a straightforward issue that has been coming up all too often with this editor and one other editor on the article lately, and it's getting to be a really exhaustive process having to explain the simplest of details over and over again to editors who refuse to listen or play by the rules. It seems that they are waging a war of attrition, whereby they make blatantly inappropriate edits and then launch edit/revert wars under obviously flimsy premises, necessitating lengthy talk page replies/explanations and noticeboard interventions time and time again. Seems very unfair for a couple of rogues to punish other NPOV editors in this manner, so I'd really like to see some user blocks handed out for this sort of conduct so that it can be kept to a minimum in the future. Not to sound vengeful, but there needs to be consequences for WP:DE/WP:TE] and an example needs to be set so that this sort of punitive war of attrition and waste of WP resources does not continue. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I must have angered the beast. Now the editor is blanking huge swathes of content from the article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed the external link to the video. However I have no idea about what to do with the rest! I would suggest going to WP:DRN as this seems to be more of a content dispute than edit warring... (And no, I am NOT an admin!) Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 04:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. That should hopefully put the immediate BLP violation issue to rest. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Scratch that. Problematic behavior continues. One of the other edit warriors just reverted the deletion and put the video link back in the article.

I believe this is a simple case of two editors disagreeing as to when new information was added to an article and who has the right to revert it. I was the one who originally added the video, so any blanking of it would be a reversion, and any restoration of it would be, well, a restoration.

The video in question was originally posted by me to the page at 18:17, 23 September 2012 as a source for a statement in the text that VanderSloot as a child was engaged in "chopping wood for his mother's cookstove, milking cows and feeding chickens, and he began managing the farm when he was twelve years old. He was allowed to keep the $2.50 cream check to save for his college education"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_L._VanderSloot&diff=next&oldid=514194933

At 20:23, 23 September 2012, Rhode Island Red removed the text, as well as the citation, with the Edit Note "Seriously? Video speech with Norquist at the Heritage Foundation making allegations about third parties? Not even properly attributed or accurately quoted; no transcript. Take it to talk if any objections."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_L._VanderSloot&diff=next&oldid=514204751

At 23:42, 23 September 2012 I restored the info that had been deleted by RIR – and added some more – along with the Heritage video citation (again) as the source. My Edit Note stated "Rewriting two paragraphs to give a more rounded picture of the subject, as reported in WP:Reliable sources. Fixing a link to Heritage Foundation per request (See Talk Page)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_L._VanderSloot&diff=next&oldid=514212931

Having realized that this video was not really a good source for the information in the article, at 00:01, 24 September 2012, I removed its link from the list of References and made a new Section for the article, titled "External links," and I placed the link there, with the Edit Note stating "Changing Heritage Foundation link from a Source to an External Link. The statements in the article are sourced elsewhere as footnoted." This I considered to be a new posting, not a restoration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_L._VanderSloot&diff=next&oldid=514235315

I posted a note explaining the above at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot#Heritage_Foundation_video

At 03:11, 24 September 2012 RIR reverted a large number of my editorial and factual changes, going back to a previous version, I believe, as well as removing the External Link section with its link to the video in question. His Edit Note stated: (none of what was added is mentioned in the cited source (Popkey))" This, to me, was RIR's first reversion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_L._VanderSloot&diff=next&oldid=514252801

At 04:51, 25 September 2012, having taken RIR's concerns into consideration, I restored the External Note, with a link to the video. This restored External Link had a new reefer, as follows: "'The Bloggers Briefing,' Heritage Foundation, May 29, 2012, video, at 32:33] VanderSloot speaking at a meeting of the Heritage Foundation, talking about his life, childhood, education and family, supporting the free-enterprise system and responding to charges made against him." I did not leave an Edit Summary because I considered that was all taken care of on the Talk Page (sorry). This was a restoration, not a reversion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_L._VanderSloot&diff=next&oldid=514433477

At 16:25, 25 September 2012 RIR removed the External Link and added this Edit Note: "video is filled with WP:BLP violations (i.e., controversial claims against third parties). I explained this already, so please stop ignoring the issue." I considered this RIR's second reversion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_L._VanderSloot&diff=next&oldid=514508854

Really puzzled, I took RIR's complaints to heart and spent an hour or more viewing the video and making notes, and I found only one comment in it that could possibly have been damaging to any person, who, by the way, was a public figure about whom Frank VanderSloot stated an opinion.

I posted my complete report about what I found in the video on the Talk Page at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot#Link_to_Heritage_Foundation_video

At 21:23, 25 September 2012, I restored the External Link, with the Edit Note "This has already been reverted twice by the same editor. See WP:3RR and WP:Editwar)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_L._VanderSloot&diff=next&oldid=514550067

So far the External Link in question has stayed put. There is a discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot#Link_to_Heritage_Foundation_video on the fate of this video, and I believe that is where this complaint should be decided.

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC) -
 * That's a mighty long post that really seems to miss the point. It's late, so for now, I'll just reiterate that I clearly documented all the reasons why this video violates WP:BLP, so I don't know why the point is still being missed after I had been making those same points all along. This never should have escalated to an edit war. The BLP and sourcing issues are cut and dried.Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Just received this notice on my Talk page alerting that the editor in question is now violating WP:CANVASS in a possible attempt at vote stacking. Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The CANVASS issue would be troublesome were it not for the fact that no one not already cognizant of this page has appeared at all, making it moot at this point. I would point out that I am known as a very strong proponent of WP:BLP. The issue here is whether WP:BLP is a valid defense where the source is essentially an SPS by the person and the person deleting it suggests it is self-serving for the subject of the BLP. If a self-serving statement is removed because it defends the subject of the BLP, does WP:BLP suggest that reverts do not count? I fear that both editors have, indeed, edit warred here, but misuse of a policy as a license, if it is indeed misuse, does not excuse RIR. OPs are not exempt, IIRC. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * . The edit-warring report, as originally filed, is stale. The edit-warring occurred 3 days ago. It looks fairly clear to me that GeorgeLouis canvassed. The fact that no one has appeared as a result of the canvassing does not render the canvassing acceptable. I don't usually look at content too much in an edit-warring report but because this is intertwined with whether there is a BLP policy violation, I did look at some of the history, including the comments here and on the article talk page. The topic at BLPN doesn't seem to have attracted much attention. The video is very long (an hour is what someone said), and I'm not going to watch the whole thing. It's fairly clear to me that it is a link that should not be in the article body or in the external links section. It is essentially a platform for a political organization to spread various messages. Assuming that RIR is correct as to what it says at various points in the video (RIR lists quotes and times on the article talk page) - and GeorgeLouis has not challenged the actual facts of RIR's list - the link violates BLP because third-parties make accusations against living persons, and it is not reported in a secondary source. Honestly, I find it highly suspect that anyone would use this link to report on the subject's childhood and various anecdotes he tells about his childhood. It's mostly trivia; yet to hear that trivia, you have a an hour-long link with a great deal of objectionable material. I believe GeorgeLouis himself does a good job of pointing to WP:ELBLP as one of the policies that prohibit the use of this link in the article. At the moment the link is out, having been removed several hours ago by Barts1a. If there were still a tug-of-war on the article about the link, I'd lock the article, and I'd lock it without the link because of the policy issues. Even if someone wants to continue arguing that the link does not violate BLP, WP:BLPREMOVE is sufficient to keep it out until the issues are fleshed out. I might remind editors that a content consensus cannot override policy, although I understand that editors can disagree whether the policy is violated in the first instance. My belief is this report should be closed as stale with the understanding that the link cannot go back in. I'm not going to close the report, though, particularly in case other admins wish to comment. I will be watching the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * --Bbb23 (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Reiniger321 reported by User:Lguipontes (Result: Blocked both for 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: [diff]
 * 2nd revert: [diff]
 * 3rd revert: [diff]
 * 4th revert: [diff]

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

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

Comments:

People in the Linguistics project generally accepted my edits in perfect harmony until this novice tried to revert everything that I edit (as you can see by my and his/her contributions) based on rules that were ignored until since because of consensus and permission to transcribe things dealing with local business in their respective dialects by narrow IPA. A major experienced editor (Aeusoes1) at first, in the past night, agreed with his/her side (before it entered edit war), though I'm used to dialogue to him with accuracy and research issues, it is not the first time he calls my attention on something and we generally enter consensus not much afterwards because I think I am good to try to prove my point to people who considerate dialogue, it's my first edit war in years of Wikipedia. Lguipontes (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I reverted Lguipontes per WP:PRON and WP:DEL, but he kept Edit warring. Reiniger321 (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1 - Oh, of course they'll believe someone who literally get in here yesterday, ignored consensus, "ignore all rules" and 'local' policies of the Linguistics project, and edit warred with a relatively peaceful and experienced editor for minor issues which you do not even argue to be of error of my view of the phonology of Brazilian Portuguese, but of TRANSCRIPTION – wouldn't be much easier, if my edits to some many pages are so pervasive and supposedly inadequate, for you to add phonetic values to the page of Help:IPA for Portuguese instead on reverting edits that had their accuracies not questioned by no one, including yourself? Dude, I'm not attacking you, I'm just avoiding problems for myself. Lguipontes (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1 - Oh, of course they'll believe someone who literally get in here yesterday, ignored consensus, "ignore all rules" and 'local' policies of the Linguistics project, and edit warred with a relatively peaceful and experienced editor for minor issues which you do not even argue to be of error of my view of the phonology of Brazilian Portuguese, but of TRANSCRIPTION – wouldn't be much easier, if my edits to some many pages are so pervasive and supposedly inadequate, for you to add phonetic values to the page of Help:IPA for Portuguese instead on reverting edits that had their accuracies not questioned by no one, including yourself? Dude, I'm not attacking you, I'm just avoiding problems for myself. Lguipontes (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

User:WWE+TNAMustCombine! reported by User:Keith Okamoto (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

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

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

Comments:

This user has broke the 3RR rule multiple times on both the TNA and WWE personnel pages.Keith Okamoto (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * . I see a fair amount of edit-warring. What I don't see is any discussion about the content issues on either article talk page or on the editor's talk page. Nor do I see any edit-warring warning, just the (unsigned) notice of this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Dsomeone reported by User:Jojalozzo (Result:1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: (bold edit)
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This editor is new and doesn't know the ropes but persists in adding some simple content to the page. Xe does appear to be reading xer talk page and perhaps is too tied up in the edit war or just too inexperienced to notice the warnings and requests to discuss the issue on the article talk page. I suggest a very brief block to get xer attention. Joja lozzo  00:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I am new. and it is no edit war, the information is good, and important. no one has tried to discuss with me. I am fixing the complaints. I removed the ref in question. and am doing my best. --Dsomeone (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Again no one is discussing any answers, they are just deleting good information and with no good reason, the last deletion was without and discussion. Not making the page better. Please view the page. I am explaining in detail what I do and no one is collaborating, just criticizing. --Dsomeone (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC) Regarding line for origin of word. Deism. --Dsomeone (talk) 03:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)--Dsomeone (talk) 03:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not think this editor understands much of how WP works and persists in reposting content which a number of us have removed. There is a discussion on the article talk page but xe lacks skill in expressing ideas and appears unable to allow the content to be removed while discussion is ongoing. I'm sure this is extremely frustrating for the offending editor but it's also very disruptive for the rest of us. Joja lozzo  03:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

-- Re Deism, the editors are just deleting information with no constructive alternatives, this is a religious topic and they admit to not being deist or authority of, i have been deist for many years and study it's meaning constantly, I am just trying to keep the origin of the word Deism on wikipedia and they don't like the origin of the word for some reason. I get no help only criticism and bogus excuses. please help. Deism is from deus latin word for god and Ism the religion for study of, with ref. and better format or help to improve it. see edits. Thank you. --Dsomeone (talk) 04:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

- I am being blocked because I am new and no one want to collaborate, they are just deleting and criticizing. with no better solutions. They are not authorities on the subject and give bogus excuses for the deletions. thank you. --Dsomeone (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: this editor was blocked for edit warring on the same article less than a week ago. Joja  lozzo  04:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Given that the user continued the edit war even after being reported, and that this is a second offence, and that the user is making somewhat battleground-like comments, I think one week is a suitable length for a block. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Liftmoduleinterface reported by User:Bridies (Result: Closed per reporter)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (this is his first removal of the disputed content)


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. This was started by another user on a project talk page.

Comments:

Obviously, there is no 3RR violation, but clear edit warring. The user has ceased discussion in the relevant talk page thread (where consensus was unanimously against him) and here appeared to acknowledge that there was a consensus, and said "A consensus about invalid information means little". 2 out of 3 of the reverts were performed (in the last few hours) after he ceased discussion, and he has continued after I pointed out he had not added anything further, and was acting against consensus. 3 different editors have reverted him over the course of the dispute. bridies (talk) 11:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

It is the case that bridies has decided to prioritize his own personal views of a topic in lieu of those which are correct. An editor attempting to make changes to an article that benefit it on the whole is met with inane discourse that aims only to re-establish the current paradigm. It can be said with confidence that this sort of behavior does not behoove Wikipedia in any way. What is the purpose of having an editable encyclopedia if all edits are met with 'but this is not the status quo!'. If it is the status quo that Elvis is not dead, ought one to remove the dates on which he died?

Apparently so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liftmoduleinterface (talk • contribs) 18:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The crux of Liftmoduleinterface's argument is that what he believes to be "the truth" (that visual novels are not a type of video game) is not supported by the sources in either the section he was removing or in the main article. In fact, this edit an in one of the diffs bridies provided above indicates that he believes that any source that is does not agree with his viewpoint is not reliable. His actions indicates that he intends to enforce his "truth" on the article until everyone else complicates. I should also note that Liftmoduleinterface has made almost no other edits outside of this single issue. —Farix (t &#124; c) 22:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, if Liftmoduleinterface is now interested in discussion, he should be doing it at a relevant venue. Probably starting at WP:VG/RS, with trying to overturning the consensus of the reliability of the sources to which he objects. bridies (talk) 11:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Any attempts to dispute WP:NOTRELIABLE sources are ignored, the status quo is all that matters in the case of this article. As for the fact that I have 'almost no other edits outside of this single issue'; that is because I choose not to jump around from issue to issue. I aim to improve the quality of articles across the board, and I aim to do so by giving each the attention it deserves. Wikipedia deserves no less.--Liftmoduleinterface (talk) 05:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess this can be withdrawn/closed/declined. Reported editor is now discussing and not reverting, so no need for a block. bridies (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Black Kite (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Hmains reported by User:Alansohn (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

See here


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Seeming Forum shopping aside (alansohn already started an AN/I thread about this), Hmains has already been warned on his talk page. I think this can be closed. - jc37 05:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Four reverts by an editor with over 400,000 edits who is in the middle of an edit war would the very definition of clear 3RR violation, if it weren't the evenmore damning *four* reverts, instead of the usual minimum of three. As to the bogus claim of forum shopping, the 3RR violation took place after the ANI posting, only providing further evidence of edit warring. Alansohn (talk) 11:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * . I agree with jc37. Enough fuss has been made of this already. The situation has been dealt with. Any technical block now would be punitive.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Where does this imaginary "Enough fuss" exception for edit warriors come from? This is a textbook violation of 3RR by an editor involved in a WP:POINTy category bombing campaign completely contrary to the consensus he claimed existed after receiving multiple constructive pleas that what he was trying to do never made sense. Even worse, this is an editor who in the span of making over 400,000 edits should have some basic understanding of Wikipedia policy and that you can't use "I didn't realize" as an excuse. The apologetics coming from Jc37 and Hmains, imagining that an editor who has made hundreds of thousands of edits doesn't know how categorization works strains all credulity. Nothing changes. Alansohn (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Alan, the typical result of this thread would be to warn the editor. if they didn't stop, then further sanction might be necessary. Hmains has been warned, and he has stopped. Regardless, I suggest that you might wish to dial back the accusations. If others start to see this as a type of harrassment, or other disruptiveness, WP:BOOMERANG may become applicable. - jc37 02:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Jc, you do realize that to any rational outsider this stinks to high heaven of a slam-dunk 3RR violation being swept under the rug. Look through every single edit of mine in trying to reach out to Hmains and repeatedly explaining why what he was doing was contrary to both Wikipedia policy and common sense. After Hmains decided to seek the consensus to support his case that he claimed already existed, not a single editor supported his position. If anything came up at the schools discussion, it was that Hmains should have reverted his needless and WP:POINTy abuse of AWB to category bomb several hundred articles, but sadly he refused to take on that responsibility. If you can come up with even a whiff of policy violation, then fire away with everything you've got; If there's nothing, rational editors might well start to see this a type of harrassment or other disruptiveness. Alansohn (talk) 03:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Setting aside your rhetoric, please remember that sanctions are to be preventative not punitive. And so far you are sounding to me like you're looking for punitive sanctions. - jc37 03:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Alan, I strongly urge you to drop this discussion. First, you're not saying anything you haven't already said. Second, your stridency undermines your arguments. Third, and perhaps most important, you are perilously close to making personal attacks, if not already there. Your history shows that you had a problem with incivility repeatedly, but if your block log is any indication, you've reformed your behavior. Congratulations. Don't go down that old road. Step back, take a deep breath, and move on.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe before I'm done here you could point me to the "Enough fuss" exception to 3RR. Strangely, it's not listed anywhere as an exception on WP:3RR and comes perilously close to being concocted of thin air. Alansohn (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * How do we decide that someone who has added several hundred categories, despite pleas extending over several months is not edit warring and that a slam-dunk 3RR violation be ignored due to a nonsensical "enough fuss" criteria? Does rather clear Wikipedia policy mean anything or is this all arbitrarily up to whoever wants to sweep this under the rug and ignore it? Alansohn (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Joekiddlouischama reported by – Muboshgu (talk) (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 16:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 10:49, 18 September 2012  (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
 * 2) 01:19, 19 September 2012  (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
 * 3) 01:21, 19 September 2012  (edit summary: "/* Relationships */")
 * 4) 01:41, 19 September 2012  (edit summary: "/* Relationships */")
 * 5) 01:44, 19 September 2012  (edit summary: "/* Relationships */")
 * 6) 02:21, 19 September 2012  (edit summary: "/* Relationships */")
 * 7) 03:05, 19 September 2012  (edit summary: "/* Relationships */")
 * 8) 03:10, 19 September 2012  (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
 * 9) 07:06, 20 September 2012  (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
 * 10) 07:12, 20 September 2012  (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
 * 11) 07:14, 20 September 2012  (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
 * 12) 07:26, 20 September 2012  (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
 * 13) 07:31, 20 September 2012  (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
 * 14) 08:28, 20 September 2012  (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
 * 15) 03:49, 21 September 2012  (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
 * 16) 04:48, 21 September 2012  (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
 * 17) 05:16, 21 September 2012  (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
 * 18) 05:19, 21 September 2012  (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
 * 19) 05:25, 21 September 2012  (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
 * 20) 12:29, 21 September 2012  (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
 * 21) 18:23, 21 September 2012  (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
 * 22) 06:57, 22 September 2012  (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
 * 23) 08:16, 22 September 2012  (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
 * 24) 08:26, 22 September 2012  (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
 * 25) 10:06, 22 September 2012  (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
 * 26) 09:18, 23 September 2012  (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
 * 27) 20:07, 23 September 2012  (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
 * 28) 21:59, 23 September 2012  (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
 * 29) 12:33, 26 September 2012  (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
 * 30) 16:44, 26 September 2012  (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
 * 31) 16:48, 26 September 2012  (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
 * 32) 15:18, 27 September 2012  (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
 * 33) 15:59, 27 September 2012  (edit summary: "/* Politics */")

Warnings: August 25, September 18, September 23, September 27

Comments:

This individual seems to be savvy enough to stop at three to prevent breaking the letter of the 3RR law. However, as you can see, when the 24 hour period is over, the user returns to edit war again. This clear pattern of edit warring needs a block to be stopped. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * . I can see the pattern, and it's possible you're right that the user is gaming the system. But, at the same time, I see that the user has made only 189 edits at Wikipedia and zero edits on any talk page. I also see that other than plastering templates on the user's talk page, no effort has been made to discuss the problem with the user. Perhaps that would be more fruitful than blocking them. It would at least make a block more justifiable if they refused to collaborate.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The August 25 "warning" I posted there wasn't a templating, but a genuine talk page post. Granted, it was terse and curt. I'm attempting to engage the user on his/her talk page now. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you meant your September 23 warning, which has a personalized comment added to the template msg?—Bagumba (talk) 23:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that's what Muboshgu meant as they didn't edit the talk page on August 25. I missed it because it was sandwiched in between the templates. In any event, Muboshgu, I appreciate your making the extra effort to engage the editor. If it fails, and they continue to edit-war, you can come back here or even post directly on my talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In spite of the effort to contact this editor, he came back on 29 September to once again restore the line "I'm not in the Republicans' camp" that had previously been removed by others. Joekiddlouischama maintains his perfect record of never commenting on a talk page. Is there any way short of a block of getting his attention? EdJohnston (talk) 06:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Your latest warning/advice to him was many hours after his last change to the Eastwood article. Because of that, I think it's better to wait and see what he does before blocking. I've done a couple of things. First, I reverted his last change (in doing so, I'm not expressing a view on the content dispute - it's procedural), which was very similar, although not identical, to his previous changes. Second, I've added a (sterner) comment to yours on his talk page. At this point, he has only two options. He can stop editing the article and discuss the content issues, or he can make further changes without discussion and I will block him. Obviously, if he doesn't comply with the warnings and I happen to be off-wiki at the time, any admin can block him.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Closed. I'm going to watchlist the article and editor, and see what happens.  If they continue to edit-war, they'll be blocked straight away. Black Kite (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * . They did and they were.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Asmpgmr reported by User:Thibbs (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:


 * The central issue here is that Asmpgmr believes that no reception section should appear in the article and he is unwilling to discuss the matter despite being invited to. He has blanked the reception section over and over again for the past few days but today he's done it 4 times in 24 hours.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * I've been asked not to contact Asmpgmr on his talk page (see here and here), and he has a record of deleting every message I post to his talk without responding, but I did try to warn him here.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * User talk:Thibbs - initial attempt to resolve dispute
 * - invitation to a community discussion about exactly this issue. Asmpgmr decided not to participate.
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games - link to the resulting community discussion
 * User talk:86.175.34.86 - most recent discussion of the issue

Comments:


 * Asmpgmr has taken a strong dislike to me personally so I would appreciate it if someone else could talk to him and explain to him that this is not how Wikipedia works. He seems to be an intelligent person but he has no idea how to collaborate and he won't listen to any advice I give on the matter. -Thibbs (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thibbs is a user who has attacked me with backhanded comments multiple times, questioning my intelligence, suggesting I'm delusional, cranky and stressed amongst other annoying snarky remarks. I've tried to avoid him altogether simply for the sake of civility yet he keeps hounding me and then complains that I don't want to deal with him. Really ?

As for the issue at hand he and another user seem to think that adding reviews is a good idea for encyclopedic content. Reviews are definitely subjective, they are the opinion of the reviewer. How is one person's review of something any more valid than the next person's ? Would it be OK if users added their own personal opinions to articles ? I thought one of the core principles of Wikipedia was having a neutral point of view. This is something I totally agree with. It is a very good principle for an encyclopedia to be purely factual and objective with no bias whatsoever and my intention is only to follow that. I really don't see why this is a bad thing unless someone simply doesn't care about this and wants to use Wikipedia to increase the profile of something they personally like. If certain opinions are allowed then where is the line drawn ? If certain opinions are allowed then that means Wikipedia's NPOV principle isn't serious and it is frankly hypocritical to claim this is a core principle.

My only intention is to improve articles which I know about by making sure they are factually correct, adding factual information if it would enhance the article, removing any errors if I see them, doing cleanup if necessary and making sure there is no bias one way or another. This seems like a perfectly reasonable and valid goal. Asmpgmr (talk) 00:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Including reviews is one of the most basic, accepted editing practices when writing about video games and other art and entertainment. Including opinion is not incompatible with WP:NPOV as long as each is given the proper WP:DUE weight. Either way you can't just keep removing stuff against consensus and without discussion. bridies (talk) 02:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've read NPOV and I really don't see where opinions are compatible with that, it mentions nothing about including reviews or any other sort of opinionated content. A neutral point of view should mean a neutral point of view. Opinions are not neutral. I truly don't understand the logic of arguing against this. Is Wikipedia serious about their own principles or is Wikipedia a joke ? Asmpgmr (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

As Asmpgmr demonstrates here, he is not interested in discussing matters and he considers my efforts to discuss the underlying issue with him to be "hounding". He takes offense at everything I say regardless of my intent (although interestingly he insults me freely without any concern for my taking offense), and although he doesn't avoid (as I have) the articles that are the focus of our underlying dispute, he has craftily avoided me by ignoring the consensus-oriented discussion I invited him to at the WikiProject Video Games talk page. Every single editor I'm aware of who has looked at the underlying issue has rejected Asmpgmr's authoritarian view either implicitly or explicitly, but because Asmpgmr is avoiding me and my activities he's never heard that and because I'm forbidden from contacting him he remains in blissful ignorance free to revert over and over again to preserve his vision of the perfect Wikipedia. Since I first asked him to avoid blanking reception sections while we were still discussing the issue, he has done so over a dozen times and as far as I can tell he believes our discussion to be over. He's apparently content knowing that I and others disagree with his edits but he doesn't care what others think because he is an expert at arcade game topics and that's all there is to it.

Although I think he could really use a voluntary break from editing, I recognize that a block may not resolve the behavioral problems. Someone neutral needs to talk to him to get it through his head that he cannot carry on like this. Our dispute is trivial in the extreme and is purely guideline-based. In other words his beef is not with me, it's with the community. Someone needs to explain to him that he can much better serve his needs by channeling his frustration into making cogent arguments to the community in an attempt to change consensus rather than by shutting his eyes and blindly reverting in an attempt to score cheap victories against an editor he imagines is his enemy. -Thibbs (talk) 02:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "behavioral problems" ?? Yet another attack, you are a hypocrite who continues to attack and make assumptions about me in an effort to further your own questionable agenda and then wonder why I don't want to deal with you. Asmpgmr (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 03:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Ahsanch12345 reported by User:Ratnakar.kulkarni (Result: 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: this was the version that is being reverted by the user.


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

He/she is a new user not sure about this being a SPA. I have mentioned on the talk page of the user that he should take it on the article talk page if he/she wants those additions which look like POV. There was no reply, he reverted my reverts so I inserted a warning and reverted his edits. He again reverted my edits and again there is no reply either on my talk page or his talk page or the article's talk page. Did not know how to proceed so came here. P.S; This is the first time I am reporting someone so there might be few errors. --sarvajna (talk) 10:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 72h Fairly obvious disruption and possible socking, please feel free to submit an SPI. Black Kite (talk)

User:Festermunk reported by User:Carolmooredc (Result: 48 hours, page semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] (N/A since many different changes, some acceptable)


 * 1st revert: In this set of edits one of many of his previous removals of overly long Greenwald quote, ignoring attempts to come up with a consensus one; also changes long standing description of RT as "global multilingual television news network based in Russia." to ""English-language Russian television channel" linking List of Russian-language television channels" which is inaccurate and even disruptive
 * 2nd revert: remove ref'd material I just inserted
 * 3rd revert: Again edit warring with Anon Ip over shortening Greenwald quote
 * 4th revert: Again edit warring with Anon Ip over shortening Greenwald quote

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: My 9/22 warning to him. Note the article was protected for a week because of Festermunk and Anon Ip's edit warring over Greenwald quote and other issues - diff here. (I don't know if Anon IPs have violated 3rr or if they are same or different individuals.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The Greenwald quote was discussed in several talk page sections, but no real attempt to compromise.

Comments: Festermunk obviously has an extremely negative POV vs. RT.com, just as Anon IPs have a positive one. Obviously this makes it hard for myself, and any other editors who would attempt to make the article NPOV. These editors need a break from editing the article, instead of just protecting the article for another week. I don't have a problem with their continuing to edit the talk page, but whatever. CarolMooreDC 21:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There appears to be IP-hopping as part of a content dispute, so I've also semi-protected the page for 2 weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There appears to be IP-hopping as part of a content dispute, so I've also semi-protected the page for 2 weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

User:JoshuSasori reported by User:123.224.121.75 (Result: Article protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.224.121.75 (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Article protected. Please feel free to work out any issues on the talkpage. Black Kite (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment on User:123.224.121.75:
 * The account User:123.224.121.75 has only been used for editing one page, Shiguehiko Hasumi.
 * The user was asked to add a citation for his/her change.
 * The user put references into the edit summary rather than the article. Despite the user's failure to understand the request for citations, the user was familiar enough with Wikipedia to start using edit-war templates and come straight to this noticeboard.
 * The references the user added to the article don't support the edit, except via a synthesis.
 * The user ceased all discussion on the talk page once the article was protected.
 * The anonymous user seems to be using this noticeboard and the revert rules in order to prevent his/her synthesis from being removed from the article. JoshuSasori (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Further to this, I'd like to ask if it could be checked whether User:123.224.121.75 might be someone with a Wikipedia account who is editing anonymously? I have a strong suspicion about this. JoshuSasori (talk) 04:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Tomica reported by User:Till (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I didn't want to have to come to this but they have reverted 5 times in 24 hours, which IMO is just a crystal-clear violation of WP:3RR. Till 17:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My initial reaction is (1) there is a lot of acrimony between you and Tomica and (2) it's not clear if Tomica's reverts are, if not exempt, at least understandable. There may also be some sockpuppetry going on that Tomica is reverting (see User:45abc123's edits and subsequent edits by IP addresses).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I find this report totally useless and a little "biased" (actually don't know why, but yeah). Never before had any big accidents with Till, but suddenly something happened with him and his behavior that was initially good. I don't think I broke the 3RR cause I reverted the five times different users or IP's. Good note made User:BBB23, probably is sock-puppet case but let me elaborate my edits/reverts a bit. The first one was obviously my mistake and I am guilty about it I admit it. But the rest? Those were pure vandalism. Some users/IP's (which is probably) one was adding the UK download date with a FAKE reference. If you check the reference it does not exist. I personally went through Rihana's page on UK iTunes to see if the song is released, but obviously it was not. The other revert was genre vandalism which btw had a not to not remove the genres, instead it was. To be honest, I am the one who should report Till cause he made a bunch of WP:PERSONAL ATTACKs on my talk page including things like he would "spuke that shit on me" and other stuff including WP:SHOUTING. He also wrote personal messages to his talk page for me indirectly calling me a pig and telling me to fuck myself right now. So let's the justice win. — Tomica   (talk)  18:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I noticed the genre reverts and the internal comment. My use of the word "acrimony" was understated. It went further than that. Just one point of clarification for Tomica. Reverting different editors (whether registered accounts or IPs) is not an exception to edit-warring. The issue (or at least one of the issues) is the nature of the revert, not which editor it impacts.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've just semi'd the article, hopefully this will help calm everyone down a bit. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Tomica, it is this attitude that I'm talking about! You reverted five times in 24 hours yet claim "I don't think I broke the 3RR cause I reverted the five times different users or IP's"—wrong, you are not allowed to make reverts to an article more than four times in 24hrs, regardless of the editors, period. You have shown clear signs of article ownership by constantly patrolling the article and reverting people, again with the marking of "vandalism" when it isn't. If someone is changing the genre, simply undo it (without the vandalism notice) and explain to them on their talk page why they shouldn't change it. Btw I haven't made a single personal attack to you. If you are referring to "trying to teach a pig to sing", that is a figure of speech in English language, and the fuck you right back thing had completely nothing to do with you, it's a 2004 song. Till 04:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I am not stupid, I can't purely understand that those messages were towards me. This is a pure message for that (on my talk) ...Your ignorance continues to astound me. Till 17:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC) (u wrote it after you posted your poems on the talk). How come removing of information and removing genres is not vandalism? That's the reason I tagged that. And of course I do not shown signs of WP:OWN, everybody can edit the article. Did I revert when the CR was created? Or the charts? So what If I edit the article everyday? Isn't this Wikipedia the free editing encyclopedia. — Tomica   (talk)  08:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I never said you were stupid. This is the figure of speech that I am talking about. And yes I will admit it was directed at you, because of your stance that all that background information to stay. But the fuck you right back thing is a song and NOT directed at you. I just happened to enjoy the song a lot so I wrote a quote about it. I also wrote this quote, was that about you? No. Till 08:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The article was semiprotected by Mark Arsten at 21:35 on 29 September. Most of the edits by Tomica in the above complaint were prior to the semiprotection. Some of Tomica's reverts were of strange edits by IPs. That implies that some of the issues may be stale. If the two editors want admins to issue sanctions under WP:No personal attacks are they OK with the rules being literally enforced on both parties? EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Cadiomals and User:Haldraper reported by User:219.83.97.18 (Result: both editors warned)
Page:

User being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [None; outside observer]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [None; I'm not involved in the dispute]

Comments:


 * . The dispute is pretty silly. I've warned both editors. Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Nick.mon reported by User:RJFF (Result: )
Pages:

User being reported:

Nick.mon engages in long-term edit wars on several articles of Italian political parties. He/she does not breach the three-revert rule in 24 hours, but over a longer period (since July). The sheer number of affected articles makes it disruptive. In every article, he/she added the totalized number of seats of the respective party in all Italian regional councils together (without disclosing a source!) to the infobox, and keeps reverting to his/her version of the respective article.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:


 * . I can see similar edits by Nick across many articles. I can see repeated edit-warring warnings by you on Nick's talk page. I can see that Nick doesn't edit talk pages, his own, or anywhere else. All that said, can you point me to a place where you attempted to discuss the problem with him but he failed to respond?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't yet. User:Checco has given explanations for his edits in his edit summaries which Nick.mon obviously ignored. I didn't really know how to start a discussion with this user. Unfortunately, Checco edit-wars as well, instead of trying to discuss.--RJFF (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Because the edits are similar across multiple pages, I suggest doing it on the user's talk page as a separate section (just so it doesn't get buried among templates and other comments).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to point a fact. I'm not an edit-warrior at all. I have been a respected editor of en.Wiki since January 2006 and, during the years, I have become the main editor on Italian political parties. I have contributed to virtually every article on the subject. I always give explanation for my edits. Nick.mon never does that, thus it is difficult not to consider him just a vandal. Despite this, I always appreciate the good part of his contributions and I'm certain of his/her good faith. I'm a cooperative guy. It is true that I've never discussed with Nick.mon in talk pages, but, as I'm very busy in real life, I haven't seen the point of doing that so far with an user who constantly ignores edit summaries and what other users write in his/her talk page. I will do it this time. Cheers, --Checco (talk) 08:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * . Where are we on this, everyone? I can see that RJFF opened up a discussion on one of the article's talk pages and then invited Nick to participate (thanks!). Nick made a brief comment, seeming to agree, but then edited something and was reverted. Did he back off on his agreement or what? What are everyone's positions on the subsequent edit?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Scrosby85 reported by User:Taivo (Result: No action)
Page: '''Croatian language is subject to WP:1RR per WP:ARBMAC User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments User:Scrosby85 threatened further edit warring here. --Taivo (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes ok i don't know how many times i can revert and stuff like this..i reverted it maybe 2 or 3 times and Taivo reported me...I don't want to have a big discussion about that theme so i will try to be more calm and talk about it.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that Scrosby85 has been made aware of his violation of Wikipedia edit warring rules, the appropriate response from him would be to self-revert his last reversion and then try to build a consensus on the Talk Page. --Taivo (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Result: No action, since Scrosby85 has apparently taken heed of the warnings and has not continued to revert the article. Someone else has already reverted his last change. We assume he will wait for consensus before making any further edits of this kind. EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

User:193.233.212.18 reported by User:Chetvorno (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:
 * 10th revert:
 * 11th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Complete discussion is here]

Comments:

This is a continuation of a previous case   The case was resolved by semi-protecting the page. However, as soon as the page protection was lifted, the editor reverted again (9th revert above). User:193.233.212.18 hasn't shown much knowlege of or interest in WP standards; he hasn't responded much to efforts to discuss the situation with him, doesn't sign his posts,  has  violated the 3RR, and has said edit-warring is OK -- Chetvorno TALK 18:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There has been related activity at Pendulum (mathematics), see e.g., . Currently there is no edit warring there since the editors opposing User:193.233.212.18 have agreed to leave the contested phrasing alone while it is discussed on the article's talk page. That discussion did not reach a conclusion yet. &mdash;&thinsp; H HHIPPO  19:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, in that case the issue is only a few adjectives. 193.233.212.18 insists that his additions to the article not be modified in any way. -- Chetvorno TALK 22:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Although no conculsion has been reached, all editors apart from User:193.233.212.18 are agreed that given the target reasdership of this article, the formula proposed by User:193.233.212.18 is not appropriate. Martinvl (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a case of an IP editor pushing his own POV regardless of any comment from others. In a comment at DRN the IP editor stated "none of their desperate arguments can withstand a slightest healthy criticism". It does not seem there is anyone supporting his version, so the superiority of his preferred wording exists only in his own mind. This has been going on since August. Since only a single IP has been used, a block seems preferable to renewed semiprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just want to say I agree with your assessment above. I think the response was appropriate.  Thanks. -- Chetvorno TALK 18:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering the editor's previous behavior, would it be possible to keep this case open for 48 hours until the block expires, so if the edit-warring continues I won't have to start a new case? -- Chetvorno TALK 18:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If the problem restarts after this report is archived, you can simply file a new report and link to this one. Or notify me or any admin who has looked into it previously. EdJohnston (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. -- Chetvorno <i style="color:purple; font-size:smaller;">TALK</i> 20:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

User:98.204.126.156 reported by User:Epicadam (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * Previous case history here:

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

This IP user is back and making the same disruptive edits to the same page as before (as shown in the previous report). Not sure what can be done, but help/advice would be appreciated. Thanks, epicAdam(talk) 22:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

* This account has only made a single change to the article since September, which was promptly reverted and hasn't been reinstated. I note also that the article doesn't have a recent history of significant levels of vandalism from unregistered or new accounts. As such, there's no need for an admin to intervene at present. Please let me know on my talk page if this account resumes edit warring though. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, on further consideration and following examination of this accounts edits, it appears that this is a long-running vandal. I've imposed a 24 hour block to send a message that this isn't acceptable conduct. Nick-D (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Mkonikkara reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: Editor is removing spoilers from this article as well as Sinister (film). - SudoGhost 18:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Nick-D (talk) 01:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Cosand reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MrOllie (talk • contribs) 19:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Result: Warned. Cosand continues to add mentions of sex clubs that are sourced only to their own web sites. He restores these after others remove them. If he continues to revert war, and to add material that has no reliable sources, he may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

User:ServantofAllah93 reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result:Advisement)
Page:  User being reported:   Time reported: 15:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)  Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
 * 1) 20:01,  1 October 2012  (edit summary: "/* Biography */ Removed unnecessary 'clarification' in parentheses")
 * 2) 21:50,  1 October 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 515526325 by GorgeCustersSabre (talk)")
 * 3) 07:38,  2 October 2012  (edit summary: "you changed his to some, you got rid of 'heavily criticised' when this is truth, you edited formatting mistake (infact now appears as it should), and you changed refuted to challenged; refuted does not necessarily mean it's been done successfully you know")
 * 4) 14:53,  2 October 2012  (edit summary: "/* Criticism */")
 * 5) 22:26, 2 October 2012
 * 6) 00:49, 3 October 2012
 * Diff of warning: here —Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Right this is fair..Yes I undid it two times I think, I got a warning, desisted and then I edited and came up with a much more balanced description...I gave away some of what I wanted, and tried to suit the requests of others. However, they have declared all or nothing for their demands. I rephrased section to make it more palatable to all, however this was promptly undone. Others were simply undoing what I did and I tried to be constructive by striking a balance. Besides, the reversion has made one phrase somewhat weird and clumsy "...for the fact he has brought people to Islam..." - this sounds incomplete and I added the adjective "many" to give it a better flow. I can go on...ServantofAllah93 (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see more than three reverts here, and ServantofAllah93 does seem to have taken stock of the warning and made an attempt to craft compromise language, so I don't think a 3RR block is warranted. However, I recommend that ServantofAllah refrain from editing this article for 24 hours and use the talkpage to try to work out some consensus language. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

HOLD ON! That first one has nothing to with this supposed 'edit wars' - I removed a rather unnecessary short statement in parentheses in a completely different place in the article. There was no 'edit wars' over this! This first accusation has been removed, however, for the benefit of not looking like a cover-up here it is in parentheses ( # 20:01, 1 October 2012  (edit summary: "/* Biography */ Removed unnecessary 'clarification' in parentheses") ) ServantofAllah93 (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, regardless of the outcome, you learn from this so hopefully I won't get myself in a situation like this again. Best to stay away from doing any 'un-doings' reversions I guess. If I have cause any trouble, I apologise, though naturally I still protest my innocence.


 * My bad, I deleted the first one while editing the tool output. I've replaced it now. Dougweller (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I would still like to point out that the first and fourth references are not reversions, therefore I feel the whole claim is baseless, as the three reversion rule has not been exceeded. Anyway, like I said I will be keeping well away from this in future, you just don't get anywhere even doing one reversion.ServantofAllah93 (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Rather than debate the technicalities of what's a reversion or not, I'll just repeat my suggestion that this be discussed on the article talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * . ServantofAllah has made two more reverts since Brad's recommendation that they not edit the article for 24 hours. I've reverted one of the reversions but am reluctant to block ServantofAllah, only because of Brad's involvement and determinations. However, I will alert Brad to the subsequent history just in case he is not watching this page. (There's been no discussion of the issue on the article talk page.)--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad has responded on his talk page and says that any administrator should feel free to act on the most current information. Since the time Bbb23 posted the above comment I've left ServantofAllah93 a very specific warning not to continue to revert at Zakir Naik. Unless reverting continues after this point, we may be OK. EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Neutralhomer reported by User:12.153.112.21 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:, then twice, then several others


 * 1st
 * 2nd
 * 3rd
 * 4th
 * 5th
 * 6th
 * 7th
 * 8th

Nonanonymous user has pretty straightforwardly reverted, as "vandalism", every edit I've made to the page except for a brief period when the user was unavailable, and avoided any discussion on talk about how to incorporate my edits. Each of my attempts was different, each progressively easier to process and recognize as constructive rather than vandalism, but the undo button was used each time without regard. The rationale was that my info was "incorrect" when it was correct and merely historical; resolution of this content dispute is being stalled by the constant charges of vandalism et al. The 7th revert undoes only minor changes and even some obvious corrections, such as correcting a duplicate 838/1838 to 839/1839 and the spelling of Teleamazonas. The 8th revert undoes nothing more than whitespacing and commenting in some of the disputed text for comparison purposes. User is not considering content at all when pushing the button.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: but user knows about it from long before eg  from my talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: the whole page.

Comments:

Result: No action here. The article was AfDed, then deleted, then userfied, and now the userfied copy is up for MfD. Since the mainspace article that was the topic of this AN3 complaint is no longer there, this report can be closed. If any followup is needed it can occur at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is currently being discussed at WP:ANI. Nick-D (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

User:173.70.4.26 reported by User:Novangelis (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Submitted by Novangelis (talk) 13:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * 6th revert: Novangelis (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 7th revert: Novangelis (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Result: Article semiprotected one month. The IP has broken 3RR, and the reverting has to stop. The presence or absence of the Pharyngula quote is at most a question of WP:UNDUE weight. The opinion is properly sourced to the person who holds the opinion. I don't see a BLP argument that would make the IP's reverts immune under WP:BLP. Whether the Pharyngula comment should remain in the article is up to the consensus of editors and is not to be settled by warring. Consider opening a thread at WP:BLP/N. EdJohnston (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * RS/N thread opened. Mangoe (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Italia2006 reported by User:Kingjeff (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on User talk page:

Comments:

Violated the 3RR rule. Kingjeff (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * . The diff of edit warring is supposed to be a warning to the user that they are edit-warring, not the notice of this dicussion. However, the main reason for the decline is the discussion between the two editors on Italia's talk page, which seems constructive by both editors, making a block unnecessary.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

User:HowardStrong reported by User:Frood (Result: No action)
Note: A vast majority (at first glance) seem to be reverts, not all probably are. This has gone on since at least Sunday, there are more reverts than just these. Same goes for the Luke-Jr report below. Frood! Ohai What did I break now? 22:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * 1) 13:02,  3 October 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 515786931 by Luke-Jr (talk) People use the thai baht. Not that sign.")
 * 2) 13:02,  3 October 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 515786016 by Luke-Jr (talk) We agree, except you.")
 * 3) 13:03,  3 October 2012  (edit summary: "That is not the commonly used Thai Baht symbol.")
 * 4) 13:06,  3 October 2012  (edit summary: "The thai baht symbol used by most merchants.")
 * 5) 13:42,  3 October 2012  (edit summary: "cited thai baht")
 * 6) 14:02,  3 October 2012  (edit summary: "/*  Implementations */  Bitcoind comments")
 * 7) 19:35,  3 October 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 515806980 by Luke-Jr (talk)")
 * 8) 19:38,  3 October 2012  (edit summary: "Reverting good faith edits")
 * 9) 20:26,  3 October 2012  (edit summary: "Restoring  citation")
 * 10) 20:28,  3 October 2012  (edit summary: "/* Prices */  This is no longer true, the prices differences between exchanges are mostly caused by the fees to get the money there and out.")
 * 11) 20:31,  3 October 2012  (edit summary: "/* Silk Road */  Returned good faith edit by Luke-Jr")
 * 12) 20:39,  3 October 2012  (edit summary: "/* Difficulty */")
 * 13) 21:08,  3 October 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 515857089 by Luke-Jr (talk)")
 * 14) 21:12,  3 October 2012  (edit summary: "Against consensus. Non-neutral POV")
 * 15) 21:13,  3 October 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 515852102 by HowardStrong (talk)")
 * 16) 21:27,  3 October 2012  (edit summary: "Again, against consensus. Please talk about it before you edit it again or I am calling in an admin. You obviously have your own selfish agenda.")
 * 17) 21:47,  3 October 2012  (edit summary: "Removed improper citation")
 * 18) 21:59,  3 October 2012  (edit summary: "No clear citation, no clear consensus")


 * . I've notified the editor of this discussion. There is a discussion about the problem going on at WP:ANI. Consecutive edits do not count as multiple reverts.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * . This was mostly over the abbreviation and symbol. Anyways, it's settled.--HowardStrong (talk) 00:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me that it's "settled". I've left a stern warning on the article talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Apparently Frood's hint about not reverting further wasn't taken, since they are continuing to revert. That's in addition to the four other clear reverts:  Their next edit after the last diff was labeled "Undid revision 515852102 by HowardStrong" but it wasn't a revert of this edit. - SudoGhost 00:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Please note your use of singular they here is potentially confusing. While I added in the agreed-upon solution, only HowardStrong has continued the edit war despite the agreement. --Luke-Jr (talk) 10:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Result: No action. Neither Howard nor Luke-Jr has reverted the article since 00:01 on October 4 and it is now 02:50 on October 5. At the moment, the war is not continuing, so blocks are not needed to stop it. If the edit war resumes, admins may not be so sympathetic. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Little green rosetta reported by User:StillStanding-247 (Result: Withdrawn)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: This is a report for edit-warring.


 * 1st revert: - revert to previous, against mention of uterine environment
 * 2nd revert: - revert to previous, against mention of uterine environment again, clearly warring now
 * non-revert: - unexplained removal, against passage about gays in relationships
 * non-revert: - unexplained tagging, against lede
 * 3rd revert: - revert to previous, restoring tags, clearly edit-warring

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Simply put, LGR has been trying to impose their will upon this article against the wishes of the other editors. They've carefully stopped just short of crossing the 3RR limit, but also made edits that added tags and removed content. The tags they added did not seem reasonable and no effort was made to open up a new discussion to explain them, which is why I got involved by removing the tags. There was also some discussion on the talk page about the edit that removed content, in which LGR falsely claimed that the material was removed because it was in the lead but not the body.

All told, LGR has made 5 edits to the article in a span of about 12 hours, and each of them was reverted by a different editor. LGR has been blocked for edit-warring before, so I'm certain they are well aware of what's wrong with their behavior. My concern is that they will wait for 24 hours since their first revert and plunge back into edit-warring. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: The third revert was restoring a "lead too long" tag to the article. It was reverted (by the nominator) on the basis that it was "drive-by tagging" and added without an explanation. However, it is self-explanatory, and looking at the article, the lead is rather long - almost 3kb. Having said that, WP:LEADLENGTH suggests three or four paragraphs is fine - this has four lengthy ones. StAnselm (talk) 09:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The lead is fine. This is a clear, unambiguous, and deliberate example of edit warring by Little green rosetta. According to  Scientiom, Little green rosetta is also stalking him.  Where's a conservative admin when you need them? Viriditas (talk) 10:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The first revert was of an arbitrary and unexplained revert by Scientiom, although it's not a revert to a previous version by Scientiom.  LGR does appear to be edit-warring, but the two immediate reverts by Scientiom, and the single unjustified revert by the nominator, may also separately constitute edit-warring.  (LGR did note the lead was too long in a comment on the talk page.  That zhe didn't open a separate section to discuss the tags may be a mistake, but it doesn't mean zhe didn't attempt to open a discussion on the tags.)  The reviewer should, in investigating whether SS is also edit warring, determine whether SS's claim that the material removed from the lead was not in the body was really "false".  SS has been known to add material to the lead which is a synthesis of material in the body, rather than a summary.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Except, the facts show that SS hasn't added anything. LGR deliberately edit warred and reverted multiple editors in a disruptive manner.  Where is the topic ban/block? Viriditas (talk) 10:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * True. SS hasn't added anything this time.  However, the fact that he has added material to the lead which is neither sourced nor a fair summary of the body is relevant to his identification as to whether material belongs in the lead is at all justified.  I consider a block or topic ban of lgr, SS, and/or Scientiom well within the discretion of the closing admin.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Arthur, it is the responsibility of the editor who places article tags to follow up on the talk page to discuss them. LGR didn't do this and the tags do not seem reasonable, so I did the right thing to remove them. The fact that you were able to dig up an earlier complaint by LGR about lede length is insufficient. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 10:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Arthur, your transparent attempt to WP:BOOMERANG this on me is shameful. I edited this article only once before, almost a month ago, and then only to remove obvious vandalism. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 10:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

For Arthur, here's what WP:TAGGING says, emphasis in the original:
 * Anyone who sees a tag, but does not see the purported problem with the article and does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, may remove the tag.

I think you need to retract any accusations of edit-warring right now. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 10:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw a detailed complaint. That the complaint was not immediately (in time) before or after the tag is irrelevant.  If you can't see the complaint, it's your problem.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you? Prove it. Show me the diff in which LGR gives a "detailed complaint" about the lead. I think you're mistaken again. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 10:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Just waking up here. As this forum isn't the venue for content discssion I'll try to keep this brief. I saw multiple issues with this article, notably the lead was too long which I did mention in the TP. I also removed some overlinking and information that was not (at least from my searching) in the body which is a violation of WP:LEAD. MrX reverted this I believe, and I haven't had time to go back and check his rationale. ISS removed the tag, for what appears to be a pointy reason. I restored it. Another editor came back and removed it again, at which point I left it as I didn't have the time to get into this on the TP. I don't see any EW, and as I've said here I plan on reviewing this content again when I have more time, and of course bring up the issues again on the TP. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 11:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You made 5 edits in a row (3 of them reverts) that were themselves reverted. How do you account for that? I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * First two were reverts of Scientom's edit (A). The third (B) was to remove information in the lead not found in the body.  This content is different than (A).  The fourth edit (C) was to add the the tags.  The fith and final edit was to revert your pointy reversion.  After that I haven't done anything, but intend to open this up on the TP when I have more time.  Your zeal for blocks is not helping things.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 11:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, please feel free to report me to TP. When you do, be sure to point out that I didn't request a block. Also point out that your buddy, Arthur, says that you were guilty of edit-warring. Point all of that out, ok? I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 11:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * By TP, I mean "talk page". Sorry for the confusion.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 11:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment -- I would like to point out that ISS "warning" came after my last edit, and no other edit made before this EW incident was opened. What is the point of issuing a warning then immediately opening an incident? little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 11:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that five different editors reverted each of your edits should be plenty of warning. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 12:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you opened this report and indicated that you issued a warning under the guise that you are following protocol for this noticeboard. This is a waste of time, and I'll not respond to you on this incident again.  To the reviewing admin, I've indicated my reasons for the edits and my intention to discuss this on the TP.  If you (or others) have questions or issues about this incident, I'll be more than happy to discuss them with you here.  For the article in question (those that care) I'll discuss those changes on it's talk page.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 12:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * LGR, every time I leave a warning on your talk page, what do you do? Right, you remove it and call me a vandal. So what do you think would have happened if I'd warned you without reporting you? Exactly; you'd have blown me off with an insult. It's your own fault that you've shut down all channels of communication.
 * Anyhow, I'm so glad that you're willing to discuss things on the talk page now, but talking isn't enough. You talked today, but you ignored what you heard and instead reverted, deleted and tagged. In 24 hours, I expect you'll provide us with a repeat performance. The fact that each of your article edits was reverted by a different editor is the clearest possible indication that you're going against consensus, but you've never acknowledged this, never agreed to stop editing against consensus, never even admitted you did anything wrong. You deny guilt and prepare to repeat your edit-war as soon as the timer expires. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 12:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Another note to reviwers It also appears that the diffs submitted by the nominator that "attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" also both occur after my last edit. I don't know the exact word that should be used in this instance; Someone creates a section purporting to discuss content issues AFTER my last edit, and then uses that new section as "evidence" that they are trying to resolve a dispute. The only one that comes to mind is outrageous. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 12:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh, no, that's not true. Of the two diffs I posted, one was for the section I added, the other was from your last comment to just before my post. The second diff overlaps with your edits. Having said that, I should have posted a diff that starts with your first comment of the day. I've left the original diffs alone and added a third one above. No matter how you look at it, there was plenty of discussion about why your edits were unacceptable. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 12:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I have generally found Little green rosetta's editing to be reasonable, following BRD, and using both article and user talks pages to resolve content disputes. However, I have observed an increasing aggressiveness in applying multiple reverts, and when that fails, tagging articles with various maintenance tags. After I first noticed a 3RR violation, I notified them of a clear 3RR violation here. It concerns me that this reverting behavior seems to have resurfaced in a little more than a week.

I think Little green rosetta may be frustrated by perceived POV pushing, especially in the lede of various articles. If a time-out is not warranted (I have no opinion one way or the other), hopefully this will serve has a wake up call for Little green rosetta to dial it back a notch or two and be careful not to let frustration turn into incivility, or disruptive editing. – MrX 13:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As always MrX, you are the voice of reason. Yes I'm frustrated at not only POV pushing (perceiced or otherwise), but at lead malfeasance (same disclaimer).  You seemed to concede that this may be happening.  I have raised these issues on various talk-pages, and sometimes the issue is addrssed, sometimes it isn't.  That's the way of the wiki.  I haven't gone RfC gonzo like some editors have (no one at commenting here at the moment) because I prefer to ask the editors invloved with the articles.  I don't believe in wasting community time on matters that should be solved in a local fashion.   little  green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 14:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Here are the recent edits by User:Little green rosetta as tabulated by http://toolserver.org/~slakr/3rr.php:


 * 15:04, 3 October 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 515751852 by Scientiom (talk) no.. we don't do "temporary" reverts to the "right version"")
 * 22:17, 3 October 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 515806124 by Scientiom (talk)")
 * 22:30, 3 October 2012  (edit summary: "removed material from lead not found in body.  In any case this is overlinked so a restoration should be much more concise.")
 * 00:34, 4 October 2012  (edit summary: "Added  and  tags to article (TW)")
 * 02:29, 4 October 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 515891639 by StillStanding-247 (talk)")
 * The edit summaries seem to identify edits #1, 2, 3 and 5 as reverts. It appears that LGR violated the WP:3RR rule. We now turn our attention to User:StillStanding-247. The 3rr.php tool only finds one edit by User:StillStanding-247:
 * 02:04, 4 October 2012  (edit summary: "This is drive-by tagging. There isn't even a discussion about this on the talk page. Please do not add tags without explanation.")
 * So, unless there is some pattern of long-term warring, there is no obvious reason to sanction StillStanding. Any admin who wants to close this report should go ahead and do so; I will be busy with another task. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a long-term pattern of disruptive editing by StillStanding, across multiple articles. Almost all of the times StillStanding has reported edit-warring, he has made at least one WP:POINTed edit which was reverted.  Ever since he was blocked for edit-warring for 3RR, where two of the reverts were consecutive except for a bot edit, he's been going after "political" opponents (editors with a different apparent POV than his, on, at least, articles related to the 2012 election and to SPLC and hate groups&mdash;he denies that SPLC is political, but that's part of the POV). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 14:50, 4 October (UTC)
 * This is not the place to impeach Still Standing, since he was not edit warring on this article. If there is a pattern, which I don't believe there is, then a separate notice board report would be appropriate. – MrX 15:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Echoing what MrX said above, I have also thought that LGR is an editor who has previously done a very good job of encouraging substantial discussion on talk pages to resolve disputes, and probably does a better-than-average job of "reaching across the isle". I did also notice that LGR has made some less-than-ideal edits in the past week or so, but wouldn't suggest anything more than a warning given their past good conduct, and the fact that this isn't exactly a clear-cut case. a13ean (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Despite the desperate attempts to boomerang this on me, you'll note that I never suggested that LGR be blocked. If I'm a political assassin then why do I use rubber bullets? Anyhow, my goal is to prevent today from looking like yesterday. This can be well-served by LGR agreeing not to edit war, even without a block. But if they repeat their performance, then I will actually go so far as to suggest a block would then be in order. (I am on record as being largely opposed to blocks and bans, reserving short ones for extreme and obvious cases, while rejecting them outright for any single revert. Visit my talk page if you want to see why.) I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

On their talk page, LGR voluntarily committed to avoiding Homosexuality -- both the article and talk page -- for two weeks. Based on this, I am withdrawing this report. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Result: Agreeing with SS that the withdrawal of this report is appropriate. Caution to both parties about behavior on talk pages. (a) Do not mark routine notices to your talk page as vandalism. (b) Avoid continuing talk-page debates on a user's talk unless that person agrees. If you must leave an official notice on the user talk of someone you are having disputes with, I recommend a one-liner that gives a diff to a notice (or a discussion) posted elsewhere. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks and point taken. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

User:JDDJS reported by User:DisneyGirlovestacos95 (Result: Effectively withdrawn)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * . This is not a 3-revert issue but a slow edit-war between you and the other editor (you failed to notify him - I've done so for you). If I were going to block anyone, I'd block both of you as I see you both as equally culpable or not culpable. I can see that you're trying to work out your dispute on the article talk page, a good thing. You should both continue that discussion and any additional dispute resolution if needed. But you have to stop battling in the article, or both of you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This report is ridiculous. DisneyGirlovestacos95 is being disruptive. One I have not edited the article since the warning on my talk page. Two, DisneyGirlovestacos95 is the one who is being disruptive here, not me. My actions are based on policy and I have made tha very clear. DisneyGirlovestacos95 is not acting on any policy and rather her own opinion. I repeatedly explained how there was no clear objective way to determine the importance of the secondary characters, and therefore to keep NPOV alphabetically was the the best way to list it. DisneyGirlovestacos95 never attempted to refute any of my arguments, but instead repeatedly changed it saying that it made more sense. If you need more proof, look at my edit history, in the couple of years I've been on Wikipedia I have not had any major issues of edit warring, meanwhile in the couple of months DisneyGirlovestacos95 has been around, she has had many issues with edit warring. JDDJS (talk) 01:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not the most helpful of responses. First, DisneyGirl has never been blocked for anything. I'm going to dig into her history to see whether she's been involved in edit wars but not been blocked or been warned or whatever. It's mostly beside the point. Second, this is a content dispute and not a very important one. Regardless of how much you think you're right, the dispute needs to be resolved properly by consensus. And if you and she can't agree and there is no consensus based on other editors' input, then you should escalate it in the appropriate way. Reverting in the article is not the answer. You're both doing it, regardless of who did it last and whether you did it after the warning. Just don't do it anymore and work this out.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually It pronounced DisneyGir loves tacos you know Gir from Invader Zim has a craving for tacos and I'm a guy FYI. DisneyGirlovestacos95 (talk) 01:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL, shows you how up I am on popular culture. Thanks for clarifying.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Resolved. Based on messages left by DisneyGir at my talk page and on the article talk page, I'm closing this as effectively withdrawn.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Long-term edit warring by User:98.179.160.135 reported by User:ssilvers (Result: 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

User:98.179.160.135 has been edit warring at Urinetown since September 20 and refuses to engage on the talk page. Also has used likely used vandal sockpuppet User:98.179.160.137


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * .  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 04:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Luke-Jr reported by User:Frood (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 22:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 13:20, 30 September 2012  (edit summary: "Correct symbol and abbreviation")
 * 2) 16:04,  1 October 2012  (edit summary: "Corrected symbol and abbreviation to consensus again...")
 * 3) 16:07,  1 October 2012  (edit summary: "Provide relevant citation for BTC symbol; Silk Road is not Bitcoin")
 * 4) 12:42,  3 October 2012  (edit summary: "No agreement on abbreviation")
 * 5) 12:50,  3 October 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 515553142 by HowardStrong (talk): The B⃦ symbol is not reliant upon any one citation, bitcoin.org is just an example. All major Bitcoin websites use the B⃦")
 * 6) 15:17,  3 October 2012  (edit summary: "Correct symbols, reverting vandalism")
 * 7) 15:20,  3 October 2012  (edit summary: "/* Extralegal uses */ It's illegal, no beating around the bush...")
 * 8) 15:22,  3 October 2012  (edit summary: "While it's true that Gavin technically contributes to Bitcoin-Qt, he is more notable as the lead developer of bitcoind")
 * 9) 15:25,  3 October 2012  (edit summary: "/* Initial distribution */ Note relevance of mining for this section")
 * 10) 15:40,  3 October 2012  (edit summary: "/* Covert "mining" */ Clarify distinction from simple mining")
 * 11) 15:42,  3 October 2012  (edit summary: "/* Bitcoin wallets */ Bitcoin.org is client-independent")
 * 12) 15:44,  3 October 2012  (edit summary: "/* Bitcoin wallets */ Warning about e-wallets")
 * 13) 15:48,  3 October 2012  (edit summary: "/*  Implementations */ The "Satoshi" codebase is shared between bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt")
 * 14) 15:51,  3 October 2012  (edit summary: "/* Bitcoin addresses */ Clarifications")
 * 15) 16:11,  3 October 2012  (edit summary: "This is where BTC fits")
 * 16) 16:15,  3 October 2012  (edit summary: "/* Silk Road */ Bitcoin is already legal and regulated, Amir seems to just have been reiterating that his exchange is compliant")
 * 17) 21:05,  3 October 2012  (edit summary: "Attempt to restore corrections reverted by vandal")
 * 18) 21:08,  3 October 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 515857486 by HowardStrong (talk)")
 * 19) 21:10,  3 October 2012  (edit summary: "Restore other corrections lost")
 * 20) 21:15,  3 October 2012  (edit summary: "Restoration")

—Frood! Ohai What did I break now? 22:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * . I've notified the editor of this discussion. There is a discussion about the problem going on at WP:ANI. Consecutive edits do not count as multiple reverts.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * . Most of these are actual corrections, not reverts at all. --Luke-Jr (talk) 23:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. Neither Howard nor Luke-Jr has reverted the article since 00:01 on October 4 and it is now 02:50 on October 5. At the moment the war is not continuing so blocks are not needed to stop it. If the edit war resumes, admins may not be so sympathetic. In answer to Luke-Jr's point, 'actual corrections' can still be reverts and sanctions will still be issued. If they really *are* corrections, others should be willing to support you on the talk page and you won't have to be the only one making them. EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a COI on this user atm regarding these changes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:_Luke-Jr --HowardStrong (talk) 13:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Drovethrughosts reported by User:Saw1998 (Result: users warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Multiple instances, one of which is the editing of 480i&1080i HD/SD links under production.


 * 1st revert:  12:29, 3 October 2012
 * 2nd revert: 15:39, 3 October 2012
 * 3rd revert: 17:54, 3 October 2012
 * 4th revert: 18:05, 3 October 2012 (At this, he identified the changes I made to be vandalism-- false.)
 * 5th: 18:09, 3 October 2012 (note left on summary: "go away")
 * 6th: 18:18, 3 October 2012 (note left on summary: "VANDALISM MY IDIOT IP EDITOR.")
 * 7th: 01:22, 5 October 2012 (most recent)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I spent quite a bit of time updating the infobox (the main issue) for the show, as well as authoring two articles of relevance. One for one of the show's stars, Jackson Pace, and the other for the awards and nominations of the show. After putting this here, and despite my newbie status, this user begins to edit war, against my attempts to resolve this (All of which has either used explicit insulting terms, or implied ones).


 * - Users personally warned by me.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 02:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * What a joke. You're making it out as if I was readding vandalism to the article and you are some Godsend who cleaned up some mess. The infobox wasn't a "main issue", or at a issue at all. Are you still completely utterly oblivious to the various errors you were making with your edits–removing valid information, inserting wrong information, removing correct wikilinks, and in turn adding wikilinks to disambiguous pages, all for no reason that were 100% unhelpful. You said on the talk page, "tell me if anything goes awry." Well, I did and you still didn't understand what you were doing wrong even when I laid it out fact by fact and you still ignored it. Unbelievable. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring by User:Kwort reported by User:Acsian88
Kwort kept abusing me via my talk page. I erased it but they kept undoing it. Previously they were engaged in some edit-warring over Yan Bingliang (see page history).

User being reported: Kwort (talk)

Acsian88 (talk) 09:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC) Acsian88 (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Now moot, as User:Kwort has been indefblocked for compounding these offences. Bishonen &#124; talk 11:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC).

User:Smartie2thaMaxXx reported by User:Amp71 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * Viewing the revision history of the page, there have been at least 40 reverts over the past couple days.

Have warned both users. Sorry if I didn't fill this form out correctly. Amp71 (talk)


 * Disruption appears to have ceased since both users were warned. Drop me a note if it resumes and I will take action. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

User:186.212.137.65 reported by User:Biosketch (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:, ,
 * 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The article is under ARBPIA sanctions that prohibit performing more than 1 revert of a registered user over a 24-hour period. The IP user has been made aware of the sanctions but is disregarding them. —Biosketch (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * . There is no doubt the IP violated 1RR. However, it wasn't clear to me that they were aware of the policy before their last reversion. I have formally notified them of the sanctions and logged the notice. The IP can still be blocked, though, without advance warning or notice, but I have not done so.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * . Even after the formal notification, the IP reverted again.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Without being aware of this AN3 complaint, I semiprotected the article which was on my watchlist, due to the obvious 1RR violation by the IP. Any admin who thanks that the semi is now unnecessary can lift the protection. EdJohnston (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Geraldo Perez reported by User:89119 (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

I had been uninvolved in the List of How to Rock episodes page, though I ran into this user in the iCarly page two months ago.

Back in August, has received two 3RR warnings: one from me  and another one from an administrator (User:Panyd). Now he has broken the 3RR rule on the List of How to Rock episodes (see the history); he has reverted an IP editor 4 times. I would warn him again with the 3RR template, but again he received two warnings already; his constant reverting has become a "pattern of behavior", as noted by Panyd. 8-9-1-1-9 (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Just curious if the intent of this action is punishment. Last edit on the reported page was more than a day ago. I was removing unreferenced and speculative information about future show info and the requests for references on the IPs talk page were ignored. The diffs given in this report show that. Diffs shown above that are supposed to be related to attempts to resolve this particular edit dispute are for unrelated edits two months ago and irrelevant to this report. The 3RR warning that was issued was two month ago for an unrelated issue. Why wait a day when the purported dispute is over? Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Your past edits are indeed relevant. You were at the brink of violating 3RR by reverting three times in 24 hours, at iCarly and List of Victorious episodes; hence you were given a warning from me and from an administrator. Now you're doing it again at List of How to Rock episodes, nearly two months later. This is not a punishment; this is a preventative measure, as you are not willing to stop reverting excessively. As for the nature of your response: Please stop using the straw man and address this concern directly. 8-9-1-1-9 (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I lost track of my edits when reverting the addition of unreferenced info. I did a self revert of my last edit. A courtesy notification that I was at 3 reverts would have been appreciated. I am generally careful about this. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "I lost track of my edits" -- it helps to take a look again at WP:CAREFUL. You also had two 3RR warnings back in August, and even 2 months from now you should be aware of the 3RR rule. As for the self-revert (which you were reverted back by someone else anyway), how come you didn't do that before this AN/EW request was submitted? 8-9-1-1-9 (talk) 06:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * . Also Geraldo self-reverted.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Italia2006 reported by User:Stigni (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: This is a report for edit-warring.


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I have try to put the standings on this page like the one on 2012–13 UEFA Champions League group stage page, but he reverse every my attempt to use that kind of layout with/without using template. Stigni (talk) 06:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * . Two of the above diffs are consecutive and therefore count as only one revert. The diff of edit-warring is a diff of the notice of this discussion, not the same thing. Both editors are edit-warring, regardless of whether they've breached 3RR. I've optimistically chosen not to block both. I strongly suggest you work out your differences through discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Cosand reported by User:MrOllie (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 17:20, 7 October 2012‎
 * 2nd revert: 17:37, 7 October 2012‎
 * 3rd revert: 17:55, 7 October 2012‎
 * 4th revert: 18:06, 7 October 2012‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Another report about this same user edit warring about the same article was closed with a warning last week, see here - MrOllie (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * He has re-added the content yet again: 11:09, 7 October 2012 <font face="Papyrus"><font color=#9966CC>- <font color=#7B68EE>down <font color=#9966CC>load <font color=#7B68EE>׀ <font color=#8A2BE2>talk  18:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Ssbbplayer reported by User:Sm (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Comments:

User:Ssbbplayer massively changing colors in templates in the articles, from standards colours to exotic colours (as additional non-standard option). Formerly, also in other articles it was often regarded as controversial editions. I when viewing article of Belo Horizonte, removed the controversial colors. User:Ssbbplayer back my change and later three times also = four reverts. My attempt to discussion and clarification (not counting the extensive descriptions of changes) has been removed by this user. I see no other possibility than report it here. Subtropical-man (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

User:DonCalo reported by User:Saw1998 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: |03:05, 7 October 2012


 * 1st revert: | 16:12, 7 October 2012 Series of reverts, the link is to the most recent.
 * 2nd revert: | 17:25, 7 October 2012
 * 3rd revert: | 18:57, 7 October 2012 Again, this one was made in about four edits, but the link is most recent.
 * 4th revert: | 19:40, 7 October 2012 Reverted and removed several paragraphs of very relevant information.
 * 5th: | 19:51, 7 October 2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: | User Psage (DonCalo)

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

Comments:

I've tried, and tried, to discuss the issue with this person but he is not heeding the comments. The whole thing began after I nominated the article for GA, and he was the reviewer. After failing it, he continued to seriously edit the article, doubling the amount of contributions that had been previously made.

Among others, he has continually added a picture from a magazine which he claims to be expired. It's not-- I've given him a link to a page identifying the fact that the rights have NOT been released and also the company that owns the image. I don't mind one, in fact I think it's good to have an image on that particular article, and I even replaced the owned one with a free image of the same relevance. Despite that, he continues to revert.

I spent upwards of 18 hours researching references for this article and out of nowhere he comes in and adds/removes/alters nearly everything I originally wrote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saw1998 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The original article on Eugénie Fougère was a complete joke and a sloppy piece of work. It mixed up two different persons, which might still be the case. Additional research is needed. My edits are all properly referenced. Regarding the cover, it is from a French magazine published in 1903 and works published outside the U.S. before 1923 are copyright free. - DonCalo (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I neglected to mention how dismissive this person is. ---Saw1998 (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * My dear Saw1998, the fact that you initiated an article does not mean you own it. I realize know that you are quite inexperienced, so I apologize for my stern assessments, but frankly, the article was sloppy and I am still not sure if it is accurate right now. Instead of running to this notice board immediately you might consider in the future to try to discuss the problem, and wait a while until someone has seen your comments. - DonCalo (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * . Strictly speaking, both of you are edit-warring. However, from my brief review of the edits and the discussion on the talk page, DonCalo is trying to improve the article and Saw is being unduly combative (overly sensitive?). Saw, I think you need to listen more carefully to what DonCalo says and why. If you disagree with his reasoning, that's fine, but explain why you disagree without getting strident. If you can't agree, there are dispute resolution mechanisms available to you. That said, if the two of you cannot cooperate on your content disputes, then either or both of you may be blocked, no matter who is "right" and who is "wrong" about the content.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

User:ErikTheAlien reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: Indeffed)
Page: Jefferson Davis

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:

Immediately before this edit USER:JessicaFairbanks82 was blocked for 72 hours for edit warring (see User talk:JessicaFairbanks82. She had made the following reverts involving the exact same type of edit:


 * 1st dif: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jefferson_Davis&diff=516480201&oldid=516468822
 * 2nd dif: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jefferson_Davis&diff=516483402&oldid=516482460
 * 3rd dif: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jefferson_Davis&diff=516492831&oldid=516490091
 * 4th dif: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jefferson_Davis&diff=516538227&oldid=516504318
 * 5th dif: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jefferson_Davis&diff=516539251&oldid=516538806

She had received a 3RR Warning here.

Prior to these five edits, IP USER:216.252.23.39 had made these edits involving the same material:


 * 1st dif: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jefferson_Davis&diff=516297687&oldid=515659766
 * 2nd dif: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jefferson_Davis&diff=516452029&oldid=516330264

It appears to me that the block placed on JessicaFairbanks82 should be extended to both ErikTheAlien and the IP. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  00:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sock indeffed, IP 1 month (has previous history on this) and master's block adjusted to two weeks for the additional socking and block evasion.

User:Lugnuts reported by User:MarcusBritish (Result: )
Page:
 * 09:37, 8 October 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-47) ‎ . . Lady for a Night ‎ (top) [rollback 1 edit]
 * 09:36, 8 October 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-46) ‎ . . A Lady Takes a Chance ‎ (top) [rollback 1 edit]
 * 09:36, 8 October 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-47) ‎ . . Dakota (film) ‎ (top) [rollback 1 edit]
 * 09:36, 8 October 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-46) ‎ . . Tycoon (1947 film) ‎ (top) [rollback 1 edit]
 * 09:36, 8 October 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-47) ‎ . . I Married a Woman ‎ (top) [rollback 1 edit]
 * 09:36, 8 October 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-47) ‎ . . King of the Pecos ‎ (top) [rollback 1 edit]
 * 09:35, 8 October 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-47) ‎ . . The Oregon Trail (1936 film) ‎ (top) [rollback 1 edit]
 * 09:35, 8 October 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-47) ‎ . . The New Frontier (film) ‎ (top) [rollback 1 edit]
 * 09:35, 8 October 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-47) ‎ . . Westward Ho (1935 film) ‎ (top) [rollback 1 edit]
 * 09:35, 8 October 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-47) ‎ . . Rainbow Valley (film) ‎ (top) [rollback 1 edit]
 * 09:34, 8 October 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-47) ‎ . . West of the Divide ‎ (top) [rollback 1 edit]
 * 09:34, 8 October 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-47) ‎ . . Sagebrush Trail ‎ (top) [rollback 1 edit]
 * 09:34, 8 October 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-46) ‎ . . College Coach ‎ (top) [rollback 1 edit]
 * 09:34, 8 October 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-47) ‎ . . The Man from Monterey ‎ (top) [rollback 1 edit]
 * 09:34, 8 October 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-46) ‎ . . The Life of Jimmy Dolan ‎ (top) [rollback 1 edit]
 * 09:33, 8 October 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-47) ‎ . . His Private Secretary ‎ (top) [rollback 1 edit]
 * 09:33, 8 October 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-47) ‎ . . Somewhere in Sonora ‎ (top) [rollback 1 edit]
 * 09:33, 8 October 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-46) ‎ . . Central Airport (film) ‎ (top) [rollback 1 edit]
 * 09:33, 8 October 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-47) ‎ . . The Telegraph Trail ‎ (top) [rollback 1 edit]
 * 09:33, 8 October 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-47) ‎ . . Haunted Gold ‎ (top) [rollback 1 edit]
 * 09:32, 8 October 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-47) ‎ . . The Big Stampede ‎ (top) [rollback 1 edit]
 * 09:32, 8 October 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-46) ‎ . . That's My Boy (1932 film) ‎ (top) [rollback 1 edit]
 * 09:32, 8 October 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-47) ‎ . . Lady and Gent ‎ (top) [rollback 1 edit]
 * 09:32, 8 October 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-46) ‎ . . Brown of Harvard (1926 film) ‎ (top) [rollback 1 edit]
 * 09:31, 8 October 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-47) ‎ . . Range Feud ‎ (top) [rollback 1 edit]


 * User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: [diff]
 * 2nd revert: [diff]
 * 3rd revert: [diff]
 * 4th revert: [diff]

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

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

Comments:

I recently created navbox Template:Filmography of John Wayne in an attempt to relate his ~180 film appearances, due to the "no no" creation of Films by Actor categories, and his filmography is split between 3 articles making accessibility tricky. Having created it, I placed it on the majority of his films. Lugnuts raised the template via TfD claiming there was a "consensus" against filmography navboxes, which actually amounts to a WP:SYNTHESIS of TfDs varying between 3 and 5+ years old, and is not a community approved consensus represented in guideline or policy, otherwise I wouldn't have created the said navbox in first place.


 * covers 9 such templates – 19 April 2007
 * covers 1 such template – 18 June 2007
 * covers 1 such template – 21 July 2007
 * covers 1 such template – 12 August 2007
 * covers 15 such templates – 13 August 2007
 * covers 18 such templates – 14 August 2007
 * covers 3 such templates – 21 August 2007
 * covers 1 such template – 24 October 2007
 * covers 4 such templates – 10 January 2008
 * covers 1 such template – 23 January 2008
 * covers 15 such templates – 24 January 2008
 * covers 1 such template – 20 April 2008
 * covers 1 such template – 25 May 2008
 * covers 1 such template – 16 July 2008
 * covers 3 such templates – 13 September 2008
 * covers 3 such templates – 26 November 2008
 * covers 1 such template – 28 December 2008
 * covers 1 such template – 29 December 2008
 * covers 1 such template – 27 April 2009
 * covers 1 such template – 6 May 2009
 * covers 1 such template – 9 May 2009
 * covers 2 such templates – 17 May 2009
 * covers 1 such template – 30 September 2009

Despite not yet receiving any support to delete the navbox, Lugnuts proceeded to remove it from the John Wayne films. I believe, given the 3–5 period since the last TfD that WP:CCC is the case. No one seems in a hurry to "delete" other than Lugnuts. I asked Lugnuts to stop removing the templates and wait for the outcome, and replaced about 30 which he has got through. This morning, his first action was to immediately revert all the replacements. I consider this WP:POINTy edit warring behaviour, in addition to him reverting his TfD notification which was harassing my talk page (see below). I don't know whether this is WP:OWNish behaviour or just being a nuisance.. but when an editor raises a template for deletion and he proceeds to remove it without any' support, that represents a COI, does it not? I request that Lugnuts be warned not to remove the templates without proper consensus before the end of the TfD.. he's only wasting time and resources by edit warring in favour of his deletion before anyone has even !voted.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh {chat} 09:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * (cur | prev) 14:56, 7 October 2012‎ MarcusBritish (Talk | contribs)‎ m . . (3,239 bytes) (-1,214)‎ . . (Reverted edits by Lugnuts (talk) to last version by MarcusBritish) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 14:55, 7 October 2012‎ Lugnuts (Talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,453 bytes) (+134) ‎ . . (→‎ Nomination for deletion of Template:Filmography of John Wayne ) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 14:55, 7 October 2012‎ Lugnuts (Talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,319 bytes) (+1,080)‎ . . (Undid revision 516476362 by MarcusBritish (talk)) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 14:51, 7 October 2012‎ MarcusBritish (Talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,239 bytes) (-1,066)‎ . . (Undid revision 516475982 by Lugnuts (talk) It's a notification, I've read it.. don't need it now. Deleted.) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 14:48, 7 October 2012‎ Lugnuts (Talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,305 bytes) (+1,066)‎ . . (Undid revision 516455772 by MarcusBritish (talk) Something to hide?) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 11:47, 7 October 2012‎ MarcusBritish (Talk | contribs)‎ m . . (3,239 bytes) (-1,066)‎ . . (Reverted edits by Lugnuts (talk) to last version by MarcusBritish) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 11:19, 7 October 2012‎ Lugnuts (Talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,305 bytes) (+224) ‎ . . (→‎ Nomination for deletion of Template:Filmography of John Wayne ) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 11:13, 7 October 2012‎ Lugnuts (Talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,081 bytes) (+278) ‎ . . (→‎ Nomination for deletion of Template:Filmography of John Wayne ) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 10:57, 7 October 2012‎ Lugnuts (Talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,803 bytes) (+564)‎ . . (undo)


 * Past consensus shows these navigation boxes for actors should not be created, I'm simply removing the vandalism from this user. I've tried to talk to him, but he reverts my comments in a very child-like way.  Lugnuts  And the horse 09:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Vandalism.. what fucking vandalism? Have you even read WP:VANDAL? That was uncivil and anti-AGF. And those are individual consenus' not a Wiki-wide policy.. they don't represent consensus. The editor who made that page is even retired. You haven't tried to talk to me, you're simply playing WP:GAMEs.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh {chat} 09:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have tried talking to you, but you keep reverting my comments on your talkpage - I guess you have something to hide. And please read WP:CIVIL, son.  Lugnuts  And the horse 09:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't call me "son", I asked you once already, makes you sound like a pervert..and creeps me out.. and go read WP:NOBAN, and stop harassing me FFS!! READ: STOP EDITING MY TALK PAGE!  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh {chat} 09:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to have issues! 09:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)  Lugnuts  And the horse 09:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've asked you no less than five times to stop editing my user page.. unless you've got severe learning difficulties then it should be clear what that means. You're WP:HARASSING me, and I won't tolerate it. Disgusting..  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh {chat} 09:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, please be WP:CIVIL. I'm not harassing you at all. I'm trying to discuss this issue with you. Please grow up.  Lugnuts  And the horse 09:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BAITING, you're a master. But not good enough. Try writing some high-quality articles for a change instead of wasting your time defending those 13,000 stubs you created and making it harder for the rest of us to build an encyclopedia.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh {chat} 09:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And what contributions have you made, son? Oh yes, 2hrs hard spamming of a template that isn't needed.  Lugnuts  And the horse 09:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Which equates your opinion to being nothing more than WP:IJDLI. Zero AGF, plenty of abuse dished out for it, edit warring, casting false Vandal remarks, condescending use of "son", harassing my talk page.. should be blocked for pissing on the Five pillars.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh {chat} 09:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's your opinion about WP:IJDLI. I've backed my edits with the consensus that exists. You have not. And you're in no place to talk about blocks with your comments.  Lugnuts  And the horse 09:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Doesn't exist. Isn't referenced on WP:NAV nor on WP:NAVBOX, it's hidden away in archives. Not published. Like a minefield without a "warning mines" notice. Let people walk right on in before making an issue of it. WP:Film must have all the brains if that's now it operates "policy".  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh {chat} 10:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Third opinion comments
 * It's not vandalism, but at the same time it's not edit-warring either: if an editor adds a template to a bunch of articles, another editor has the right to remove it. As far as I know, none of the film articles have actor templates (just director templates) which is most likely why Lugnuts has challenged it, so if this is a new form of template being added to a wide range of film articles it is probably best to get some input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film first. Betty Logan (talk) 09:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Betty. I raised the discussion on WT:FILM and I'm going on the current consensus that film actor nav boxes have been deleted in the past.  Lugnuts  And the horse 09:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * An editor only has right to remove it with good reason. Given the open TfD, there is no good reason that does not present a COI. The sole purpose of TfD is to establish a consensus on the matter.. by taking the matter into his own hands, pre-close, he is bypassing consensus and trying to enforce HIS own preference. That is the very definition of war editing. There is no "current consensus" because those earlier TfDs are not a "let's establish a consensus" discussion, they are independent of each other and of this.. therefore he is simply using false pretences for his pretentious and POV-push behaviour.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh {chat} 09:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the good reason is the consensus not to use them. Now read that back to me so I know you understand. The page I've linked to is titled "Consensus summaries". See - the word consensus is in the title! Seems pretty clear to me.  Lugnuts  And the horse 10:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So a title makes it true? Don't be daft, it's an archived page, not published as policy. Key word: not. There is no consensus in there, no overall "all for one" community vote. You're simply promoting a cabal of opinions, not highlighting a an actual WP: link policy. If it were "policy" why were so many templates created over a 3-year period, answer that one..  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh {chat} 10:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

User:190.142.53.99 reported by User:RJFF (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * . It's a clear violation of the 3-revert rule. It appears that the IP is from Venezuela, saw something on the news, and attempted to report it in the article, but he doesn't understand sourcing or other rules at Wikipedia. He did revert after he was warned about edit-warring, but it doesn't appear that he's reverted since participating in a discussion at the talk page. It's been about 45 minutes since his last revert. My inclination is not to block him unless he reverts again or attempts to add any unsourced material to the article. However, I could understand another admin coming to a different conclusion.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * . The parties have moved on.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Rhode Island Red reported by User:Collect (Result: Final warning given)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 15:15 6 Oct
 * 2nd revert: 17:00 6 Oct (in group of contiguous rvs not connected to others in this list)
 * 3rd revert: 21:09 6 Oct
 * 4th revert: 14:06 7 Oct
 * 5th revert: 14:47 7 Oct

Making a clear 5RR situation.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 21:31 6 Oct 4RR warning at 14:36  7 Oct One revert made after the 4RR notification, resulting in this report - 5RR is way too many

Notified of this report at 15:17 7 Oct.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:  also discussions at BLP/N about the clear BLP violations being added

Comments:

I think 5RR is past the bright line of 3RR. The material - which includes listing of victim's names, an OR inclusion of a perp's middle name, etc. is clearly violative of WP:BLP as well Collect (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Will someone tell him (summary: Harassment. Stop posting on my page now) that required notifications are required? Thanks. Collect (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * . I've notified him of this discussion. Collect, you could have done that despite RIR's telling you to stay off his talk page. As you say, it's a required notice, and if he wants to remove it, he can. Up until today, I was not involved, but now having commented at WP:BLPN and edited content in the article, I cannot take action on this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Since I did, indeed, notify him  at 15:17 I query the need for asserting that I did not notify him.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Aha, I saw what you did but read only the content of the section, not the section header, which had a notice - a bit unorthodox, but still a notice. I've struck my comments above.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is troubling to see this editor attempting to game the system by manufacturing charges of a 3RR violation. There is currently a minor dispute on the page and Collect is very much mired in it. The issues are currently being discussed on the BLPN (see below).


 * The first 3 edits Collect listed (all made yesterday) are all on unrelated areas and two of them (#37 and #38 ) were noncontentious. The first edit listed in Collect’s accusation (#36) concerned whether or not it was appropriate for Collect to have labeled Vandersloot (the subject of the BLP) as a major donor to Democratic candidates; in fact VanderSloot is clearly not, and even though this was explained to Collect, he continued to make this contentious change. I reverted it while explaining the clear rationale in my edit summary (#36 and on the Talk page. Collect was unable to justify the change, and clearly his position was indefensible (see ).


 * The last 2 edits listed by Collect in his accusation (#39 and #40) were made today and were not reverts at all but rather new edits. The first, #39, was the addition of the full name of one of the individuals mentioned in the BLP. It was added in response to concerns that were raised on BLPN here . Concerns were expressed that the individual in question, Brad Stowell, might be confused for other people named Brad Stowell (an odd argument to say the least) so I added the person’s full name (Bradley Grant Stowell) to eliminate the possibility of confusion. This was explained on the BLPN and in my edit summary. It was a straightforward logical edit that was intended to be constructive and to resolve a dispute in a simple manner -- and again, it must be stressed that this was not a revert.


 * What Collect listed as my 5th revert (edit #40) was simply a minor edit -- the removal of a duplicate citation – which was explained as such in the edit summary. It was in no way contentious nor was it a revert; and again, it was clearly constructive.


 * It concerns me greatly to see an editor involved in disputes (and Collect has been very much involved in disputes with this article in the past, with his own issues of WP:OWN and WP:EDITWAR -- see edit history of the article Talk page) manufacturing charges of 3RR violation in order to game the system. It is also indefensible to portray constructive new edits as reverts and edit warring and to use such trumped up "evidence" to harass other editors. Disputes should be resolved through discussion, not red herring requests for administrative intervention and WP:HARASS. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Read WP:EW. Your edits are separate reverts amounting to 5 reverts in under 24 hours, and 7 reverts in 48 hurs.  As for your "warning" me for my 3 edits in 1 month - I think there is no comparison.  And I would point out that several other editors also agree that you are seeking to put direct WP:BLP violations into an article.  Cheers - and kindly do not misrepresent the number oof edits per month I made.  BTW, reinserting BLP violations does not count as "constructive new edits" - never has, never will.   Your laughable assertion that I have an "ownership" in the article is belied by the facts - RIR now has  233 edits on the article - I have 23.  Ten to one ratio.  And some of mine are vandal reversions to boot!    Collect (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just came across this today, and iceberg-wise, it looks like the tip. Though apparently just revisited, this has been going on at least since September 13 . The concerns re: WP:BLP take precedence--I'm wondering why it's vital to continue to restore a non-notable's name to an article. Indeed, the name of this person is now so liberally splashed across multiple discussion pages that a good case can be made for an eventual deletion of discussions and edit summaries, per WP:CBLANK. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a content issue that's already being discussed on BLPN. It has no bearing on the inappropriate 3RR violation accusation. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As a continuation of a long term pattern, rather than a new or isolated occurrence, context is relevant. The pattern of the last month is amazing, sort of 'revert, repeat, revert again' . One of the great long running edit wars I've ever seen. Has nobody contacted a noticeboard until now? 76.248.149.47 (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The nature of the "fifth revert" is worth noting closely. Removing a duplicate ref (an edit which is not in the least contentious in the current activity on this article) is not a revert.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Any change affecting the work of another editor counts "even as little as one word."  No exceptions for "the fifth revert does not really count if it fixes something" when the bright line was well and truly crossed at the fourth revert <g>.  The edit war character of RIR is fully established - and hitting 7RR in 2 days shows it well enough, don;t you think?  And I await your apology for the absure post made by you previously here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It didn't change the work of another editor and I have not made 7 reverts; but nonetheless, you got to state your case and I got to state mine; so now you should let the process take its course rather than throwing more fuel on the fire here on the noticeboard. The point of your report should be resolution but instead it seems blatantly punitive/vindictive. The accusation of a 3RR violation was based on edits as trivial as removing a duplicated link. There is no edit warring taking place on the article, and the report was disingenuous and entirely unnecessary; bordering if not crossing the line of WP:HARASS. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You shout "HARASS" easily -- you even called my required posting on your user talk page "harassment" - which is a heck of a stretch! As for your assertion that you were not edit warring to add BLP violations - that is a laughable position to take.  Anyone can see your number of edits on the article, and the absurd amount of detail which was added to it, contrary to what all the others agree was reasonable coverage.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest that you tone it down a notch. That sort of aggressive comment at this point really doesn't help neutralize the situation. It's in the hands of other editors to decide now, so just kick back and let the process take it's course.Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Of the five alleged reverts at the top of this report, the first three (#1, #2, #3) certainly appear to be reverts (i.e., the undoing of another editor's edits). Alleged revert #4, however, has me confused.  Collect, is there a particular edit that Rhode Island Red was reverting by adding material to change the text from reading "Brad Stowell" to reading "Brad Stowell (Bradley Grant Stowell)"? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I added that based on the discussion that was taking place on BLPN. Collect's initial objection to the inclusion of Stowell's name was that other people have the same name and might be confused for that individual. That seemed like a very odd premise to me, and one without basis in WP policy, but nonetheless, to address his concerns, I did some additional searches and found reliable sources indicating that his full name was Bradley Grant Stowell, so I pointed this out on the BLPN as a solution to the perceived problem, and added the full name parenthetically in the article. It seemed like a perfectly innocuous, constructive, and uncontentious edit to me, otherwise I wouldn't have made it. It certainly wasn't a revert of any kind. It seems odd that Collect would raise the initial concern (which seemed baseless, but nonetheless...) and then freak out about 3RR over an action taken to remedy his concern. That combined with his listing of the removal of a duplicate link as a revert makes it hard for me to see this as anything other than vindictive/punitive. It certainly doesn't help to resolve editorial differences, it just throws gas on the fire. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Um -- all I did was respond to your charge of harassment. Seems that you wish to have your cake and eat it too -- allowing you to make unsupported charges without anyone noticing them. Again - you asserted that I was "edit warring" with three edits in one month <g>.  And I note that your edits do not have support on the article talk page.  Collect (talk) 02:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see five reverts here. I do see a chronic dispute with BLP overtones, that should be addressed, much more calmly, by everyone on the talkpage. There is a level of emotions involved on this page that is unhelpful and there have been some inappropriate comments that should not be repeated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That certainly sounds reasonable to me. We've got discussions going on the Talk page and BLPN and the page is stable for now, so I'm sure that whatever differences of opinion exist can be worked out through rational discourse. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There are three reverts, not five, but that is enough to enforce the 3RR rule. (1) Removing "Democratic" from the persuasion of the candidates that VanderSloot endorsed. (2) Reverting material about "journalists and gay-rights groups. (3) Restoring the name of the person convicted of a crime. As for the other accusations: (4) A different editor (not Red) did a revert to restore the suspect's name to the article; Red merely added a new fact — the person's middle name. (5) The correction of the repeated link was not necessarily a revert; for all we know, Red might have made the original error himself, and he could have been correcting it. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have issued a final warning that any further edit-warring at the article will result in a block. I hope resolution can be reached at article talk and/or the BLP/N discussion. --John (talk) 15:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)