Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive226

User:Islam90 reported by User:Jeff3000 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 23:37, October 15, 2013 UTC

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 16:05, October 16, 2013 UTC
 * 2) 17:24, October 16, 2013‎ UTC
 * 3) 22:52, October 16, 2013‎ UTC
 * 4) 23:48, October 16, 2013 UTC

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Original warning related to general Wikipedia principles of edit warring on another page 22:19, October 15, 2013 UTC. More statements regarding Wikipedia general practice about disagreements 01:59, October 16, 2013 UTC. Specific warning about 3rr on the article of issue 23:19, October 16, 2013 UTC

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: On the talk page, and multiple times asking him to come to the talk page ,

Comments: Multiple editors have asked the editor to bring up his concerns on the talk page, but he has refused. I don't know why, but he just ignores requests to bring any discussion, but just reverts -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 04:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Ring Cinema reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (Plot summary does not contain the disputed phrase "decide to")

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  - Revision as of 06:42, 16 October 2013
 * 2)  - Revision as of 00:46, 17 October 2013
 * 3)  - Revision as of 02:28, 17 October 2013]
 * 4)  - Latest revision as of 04:48, 17 October 2013 ]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:. I would also note that after this 3RR report was filed, two completely independent, unsolicited editors joined the discussion and agreed that the disputed phrase "decide to" is inappropriate.

Comments:

He makes a self-serving claim that his fourth edit, already a sign of edit-warring, was "returning to the status quo before the bold edit that is under discussion." As the "Previous version" diff above shows, that is factually and concretely untrue: The Plot summary in "Previous version" does not include his contentious edit, the phrase "decide to".

The ironic thing is that he's edit-warring over a one-word a piece of objectively poor writing that any writing teacher would instantly recognize.--Tenebrae (talk) 05:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Tenebrae is the offender here, assuming without reason that he can ignore the correct procedure of BRD. After his bold edit was reverted, he restored it, contrary to policy. Discussion is ongoing but, per the policy, the reversion stays in place. I am simply restoring the status quo while the discussion is ongoing, and that is correct. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, as the "Previous version" diff shows, I restored RIng Cinema's edit to that status quo, and rather than discuss, he reverted to his own version. Anyone can look up the diffs and see which of us is telling the truth. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Tenebrae has his facts wrong.. I am simply trying to maintain the status quo while the discussion continues. He is trying to do something else and it's not about following the policy. Is he actually asking us to believe that I somehow reverted to a different edit than the one I want to retain? If he's trying to say that we are in agreement that the status quo should be maintained during discussion, then we agree that my last revert was correct.. No further action is necessary. --Ring Cinema (talk) 11:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, this is a first: I've never heard of a person being reported for 3RR being able to say, "No, I'm unilaterally dismissing the case, even though I'm not an admin and even though I'm the one being accused of 3RR." Amazing.


 * The fact is, the status quo was the version last edited by User:Flyer22, as the diff show. That status quo version did not have the disputed phrase "decide to" in the plot summary. So Ring Cinema is blatantly, badly lying. Anyone can see the diff for him- or herself. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The first diff above is not a revert, so apparently this complaint is incorrect. It would be good if Tenebrae would follow the BRD policy but at the moment it's a moot point. (As a side note, Tenebrae's version of events is not plausible. He made a bold edit and I wanted to return to the status quo during the discussion. He is now apparently denying that he made a change at the same time trying to claim that I reverted his change. To be clear, I never reverted Flyer22, even if Tenebrae has tried to produce a diff that makes it appear that I did.) --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay. I'm going to have to list this out.


 * BRD is not a policy, it is an essay suggesting one way to make improvements to an article. BRD does not give you the right to keep removing or re-inserting material because someone isn't discussing on the talk page, nor does it say anything about which version of the article is preferred or gets to hang around during the discussion or lack thereof.
 * "Restoring the status quo" is not an excuse for edit warring regardless of who is "right". The only exceptions to 3RR are listed at WP:3RRNO.
 * That first diff is indeed a revert, as  removed "decide to" in this edit. The first diff shows that text being re-added, ergo, it is a revert.
 * There is a fifth revert: ., that edit is a revert of , who moved the "After braving several obstacles" clause to its location at the start of the second paragraph you rewrote with this edit, and your rewrite removed it.


 * Given all of this, plus your extensive history of edit warring noted via your block log, is  for edit warring in violation of 3RR. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 05:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

User:121.218.61.142 reported by User:Dougweller (Result: 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 577415863 by Dbrodbeck (talk) Earlier revised due to pro-Chinese racism. Not adequate enough explanation."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 577503909 by Dbrodbeck (talk) I have please read it. Stop reverting to the irrelevant Chinese edit."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 577530994 by Dougweller (talk) "misrepresented"No. Sources clearly say they are not related to asians at all."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 577530994 by Dougweller (talk) "misrepresented"No. Sources clearly say they are not related to asians at all."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Indigenous people of the Americas. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

IP started a discussion on the talk page but carried on editing and has made clear they will evade any block (the IP says ban but clearly means block). Dougweller (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * To quote the IP:"Please refrain from trying to ban me without discussing it with me. I'll just get around it." And when I said we don't ban IPs, "You are now dodging the argument and arguing semantics block, ban. I will get around it." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 09:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * . &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 05:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

User:AngBent reported by User:Jingiby (Result: 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Avraam_Benaroya

Comments:

For more than one year AngBent has vandalized this article repeatedly and deniyng even the fact that Benaroya was born in Bulgaria. He has warring despite in support of that fact, there were provided more than ten reiable sources. Now he keeps deleting information and facts about the life of Benaroya, that links him to Bulgarian socialist movement and even he played the key role by in the foundation of the Greek Communist Party. Deleted by him information is supported with nearly ten reliable sources. Moreover, he refuses any reasonable dialogue on the talk-page or some kind of compromise. Jingiby (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Not a 3RR violation, but a slow edit war is still an edit war. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 05:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Datu Dong reported by User:Ugog Nizdast (Result: Topic Ban)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "how often to state this until everyone gets it, daaaammmmnnnnnn"
 * 2)  (Redacted)
 * 3)  (Redacted)


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Abortion. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* ANI notice October 2013 */ new section"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

First reported here and was recommended to this noticeboard. User:Datu Dong has violated 3RR on an article which has the 1RR (GS) with blatantly obvious POV edits. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Topic banned Already on ANI thread.--v/r - TP 14:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Uscbubblegirl reported by User:Paulmcdonald (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: revision history

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) (cur | prev)  09:00, October 17, 2013‎ Uscbubblegirl (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (56,470 bytes) (+53,118)‎ . . (→‎Career) (rollback: 1 edit | undo | thank) (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism)
 * 2) (cur | prev)  18:15, October 16, 2013‎ RFD (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (3,352 bytes) (-1,356)‎ . . (revert to ucsbubblegirl citations were removed) (undo | thank)
 * 3) (cur | prev)  18:05, October 16, 2013‎ 99.191.56.185 (talk | block)‎ . . (4,708 bytes) (+1,356)‎ . . (Undid revision 577494344 by RFD (talk)) (undo)
 * 4) (cur | prev)  17:50, October 16, 2013‎ Uscbubblegirl (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (3,352 bytes) (+35)‎ . . (→‎Education) (undo | thank)
 * 5) (cur | prev)  17:49, October 16, 2013‎ RFD (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (3,317 bytes) (-1,356)‎ . . (revert to rfd citations removed-please take this to talk page blp concerns) (undo | thanked)
 * 6) (cur | prev)  17:47, October 16, 2013‎ Uscbubblegirl (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (4,673 bytes) (+191)‎ . . (→‎Career) (undo | thank)
 * 7) (cur | prev)  17:39, October 16, 2013‎ Uscbubblegirl (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (4,482 bytes) (+498)‎ . . (→‎Career) (undo | thank)
 * 8) (cur | prev)  17:36, October 16, 2013‎ Uscbubblegirl (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (3,984 bytes) (+667)‎ . . (→‎Career) (undo | thank)
 * 9) (cur | prev)  17:28, October 16, 2013‎ RFD (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (3,317 bytes) (-496)‎ . . (revert to paulmcdonald citations were removed/blp concerns) (undo | thank)
 * 10) (cur | prev)  17:24, October 16, 2013‎ Uscbubblegirl (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (3,813 bytes) (+1,117)‎ . . (→‎Career) (undo | thank) (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism)
 * 11) (cur | prev)  17:20, October 16, 2013‎ Uscbubblegirl (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (2,696 bytes) (-621)‎ . . (→‎Career) (undo | thank)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See notes in article history

Comments:

Another user (RFD) has attempted to move forward on a conversation on the issue and has not met with success. I believe that the editor may be new and may be unfamilair with Wikipedia policies so I ask that a neutral third party look this over. I was involved in an AFD and some editing previously on the article so I don't really consider myself "neutral" at this point.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Uscbubblegirl had removed some cited material about Aaron Jack who had served in the Kansas Legislature and replaced it with uncited material. I was concerned about BLP and COI issues. Apparently Aaron Jack is controversial in Kansas. I did make the attempt to have Uscbubblegirl communicate any concerns and got no where. I had posted a Welcome template on Uscbubblegirl's talk page. For my part it was not an edit war there was BLP/COI concerns. Thank you-RFD (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * She also added huge honking swaths of copyrighted material which were so enormous as to constitute a WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV problem, as well as violating WP:NOT, since we are not here to host a reprint of a lengthy ideological rant by the subject in the article about him. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  19:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Uscbubblegirl now [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston&diff=577607990&oldid=577606999 states that she is Aaron Jack's attorney] and "My client will sue you if you block our truthful edits to Aaron Jack's wiki page." I hope that a different admin will judge whether this calls for a block under WP:No legal threats. My involvement so far is merely to suggest to Uscbubblegirl that she might avoid a block by agreeing to step back. The material that might be controversial is from this May 2013 article in the Topeka Capital-Journal, which says "Agency overhaul runs afoul; critics say Jack abused his authority." Uscbubblegirl has stated "You are choosing to highlight a defamatory political "hit piece" article and citing it as if it is an objective news article." At first sight, the Topeka Capital-Journal seems to be a reliable source and their story (by Tim Carpenter) is based on interviews of Aaron Jack himself and other named political figures. EdJohnston (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * indef for making legal threats. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Timbouctou reported by User:Shokatz (Result: Both 24h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Calling upon WP:OPENPARA despite the fact the mentioned country did not exist and the common practice is to label notable personalities born on territory of modern-day Bosnia and Herzegovina by their ethnic affiliation (example Blaž Slišković, Miodrag Medan, etc.)
 * 2)
 * 3)  Completely ignoring/interpretating WP:OPENPARA as it suits him
 * 4)  Once more

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:Timbouctou and also in edit notes on Boro Primorac.

Comments:

Whoever is going to handle this report be advised that this user is currently in a argument conflict with me on Talk:Croats and Talk:Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It all started with the said user reverting me and calling upon WP:COMMONNAME despite the name of the article (Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina) refuting his argumentation. He then proceeded to request renaming of that same article so it can suit his agenda, you can see him saying that it should be renamed after I pointed out the current situation is refuting him and then the next day him petition for request. Now why I am elaborating so much...well considering all this and how stubborn this user is and considering he is willing to steep so low to request a name change of one article so it can serve him as an argument on another I am not so convinced that he followed me to Boro Primorac just to provoke another argument on a very similar issue. Not to mention obviously that he broke 3RR on that same article as I have shown you here, claiming he is reverting my vandalism. In any case I hope me elaborating gives a much more wider picture of what is happening here. Personally I believe this user has broken much more than just 3RR. Shokatz (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This first started a few days ago at Talk:Croats where User:Shokatz opposed and reverted edits by a third user, . This was regarding the usage of the term Bosnian Croats. I reverted his revert after which he started the topic at Talk:Croats, sarcastically thanking and mocking me and User:DIREKTOR for our edits . He also left a similar message at my talk page . The discussion at Talk:Croats which ensued was over the use of the said term (with me taking position that "Bosnian Croat" is really commonly used per WP:COMMONNAME and Shokatz arguing the opposite).
 * A few days after that, believing my position was right, I started a move discussion at Talk:Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina to gauge consensus about moving the article to the more commonly used term for the article topic. Shokatz did not like that so the discussion soon turned into a stream of his insults directed at me and my apparent "POV-pushing agenda" (just read the discussion.) In parallel the discussion at Talk:Croats continued. He called my move request "an escapade" and that I was "getting so low to request a move of one article so I can satisfy my POV-pushing agenda on another article [which is a complete embarrassment."]. Upon warning him that what he was saying constituted personal attacks his response to me was to "stop whining about something I brought upon yourself." . After yet another warning  he replied that because of "requesting a name change so it can suit my POV-pushing agenda" I was "shameless." and that I was "insisting on ridiculous WP:COMMONNAME argumentation".
 * Meanwhile the other move request discussion at Talk:Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina took a similar turn, with him accusing me of " dishonest and POV-pushing moves" and went on to say that he had a problem with my alleged "duplicitous, POV-pushing bullying" . I explained my position in both discussion multiple times, but all I got from Shokatz was a stream of insults and paranoid rants about my alleged "POV-pushing", even though I have no clue what POV he is talking about.
 * And in the middle of all this, an edit-war started at Boro Primorac, a Bosnian football manager. The dispute was over the opening paragraph - Shokatz believes that it is okay to keep unreferenced information about living people's ethnicity (as opposed to nationality) in the opening sentence, even in cases when their ethnicity is not relevant for their notability. Now this is obviously against WP:OPENPARA and is also against long-standing consensus at WP:FOOTY that Yugoslav footballers are supposed to be designated per their country of birth in opening statements (not their ethnicity). Shokatz claims this is not true but it is in fact quite the opposite, as a look at many of Bosnian footballers' articles will show. So we both reverted each other 3 times and then he raised this at my talk page and started threatening with reporting me . After my reply, he said he would proceed with the report as I was "unwilling to budge" I listed everything that was wrong with what he was insisting on including in Primorac article, warned him that he too had violated 3:RR and asked him not to contact me again.
 * And here we are. Perhaps I should have brought this matter here myself as soon as he started with personal attacks over at Talk:Croats and Talk:Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina. But I did not. In any case, I do not plan to apologize for keeping entirely unreferenced and irrelevant information out of the opening paragraph in a biography of a living person. His behaviour at both talk pages mentioned above was disruptive and abusive, and his edits at Boro Primorac were vandalism by definition. Plus, he edit-warred to keep the vandalism in.  Timbouctou ( talk ) 23:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. Imo it'd be silly if someone actually got sanctioned over this... -- Director  ( talk )  23:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think his name-calling and insults at Talk:Croats and Talk:Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in addition to his trolling at my talk page and 3:RR violation are all reasons for some sanction. Since when do we condone personal attacks in talk page discussions and since when is it OK to describe other editor's position as "low", "shameless", "whining", etc.? The guy offered zero policy-based arguments in both discussions. Since when is this kind of behaviour seen as lovely jubbly?  Timbouctou  ( talk ) 23:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not jubbly, but the guy's still kind of new to our glorious project, and he hasn't been warned either. Imo a "Cut It Out!" template on the talkpage. -- Director  ( talk )  23:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but please do not patronize me. I am "big boy" and I am well capable of taking responsibility for my actions. If I did anything wrong I will gladly suffer the consequences. But this is not about me. It's not me who broke the 3RR rule, it's not me who requested a name change of another article to reach a consensus on another as the the user in question here stated....who does that anyway?!? And I am sorry but commenting on someone's behavior (as I did on Timbouctou's) is not name-calling. I believe Wikipedia itself has a short but informative article on this (Name calling). Now let's get back to the issue at hand - blatant 3RR violation by Timbouctou. Shokatz (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It was not my intent to appear patronizing, I apologize. -- Director  ( talk )  05:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * . This was clearly an edit war, regardless of who made how many reverts each., you have previously been sanctioned under WP:ARBMAC, so you should know better. , I don't see that you have been officially warned of the discretionary sanctions on Balkans-related articles, so I will post that to your talk page. For both of you, this should serve as a reminder that further disruption on Balkans-related articles, by either of you, may result in sanctions. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 05:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah unfortunate, but a predictable outcome for a report like this :( -- Director  ( talk )  08:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Werieth reported by User:Hzh (Result: Mixed result - Page Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is engaging in edit warring, reverting citing copyright violation when it has been already shown by another user that there is no clear violation per WP:3RRNO #5 as discussed here User talk:Werieth. Hzh (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have already told them to file a WP:NFCR, these files are replaceable, not easily but replaceable. I have told them to file a review so that others can re-explain it, but of course WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:ILIKEIT seems to override policy (I cited WP:NFCC#1,3,8 for removal) which this is a clear case of being replaceable and not meeting the second clause of #8 Werieth (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter whether you think there is a copyright violation, the guidelines on 3RR states that it needs to be unquestionable a copyright violation before you can justifiably violate the 3RR rule, something you chose to ignore. I should state that this is not my dispute, just a passing observer alarmed by the number of images you have removed over the protest of other users. Hzh (talk) 12:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I removed 5 files and left about 20 others, Please note I did not invoke copyright violation, I invoked a violation of WP:NFCC Specifically replaceability, minimal usage, and to a lesser degree contextual significance (#1,3,8). You have done nothing other than provide ample evidence you are clueless in regards to our non-free content policy. #1 alone is grounds for removal and exemption from 3RR (we dont have non-free images of living people for example). I also cited Romeo and Juliet which is a similar work and is a FA. Guess what? it has zero non-free files out of a total of almost 40 on the page. Werieth (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * PS why havent you filed a review at WP:NFCR? Oh wait I know why, because you know you will just be told the same thing I am telling you. Werieth (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As stated, not my dispute. Please read WP:3RRNO #5 again before claiming exemption from the 3RR rule. Hzh (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have, files that are clearly replaceable, fail #1, and shouldnt be in the article. Werieth (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yep. Looks like a WP:3RRNO violation to me. Werieth, if you think the discussion should have been raised in a different forum, the onus was on you to take it to that forum before resorting to 3RR. NickCT (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Mixed result The result is really that those who restore content that possibly violates the copyright of someone else are at fault in an edit war where a reasonable argument is made that a copyright violation exists. Werieth made such an argument.  I've reviewed the article and I am inclined to agree to some respects that NFCC #1 was violated.  I've protected the page and intend to layout why everyone managed to escape a block.--v/r - TP 16:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You might also mark the discussion where Werieth made his reasonable argument on the article talk page. I cannot find it. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're asking what's worse, restoring copyrighted material is clearly worse than edit warring. So, you're better off if I just close this case as I have.--v/r - TP 17:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * re " those who restore content that possibly violates the copyright" - Can you cite policy please. As far as I see it the standard is that material must be "clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC)" per WP:3RRNO. Can you point to the policy where the language states that material that "possibly violates the copyright" should be removed? NickCT (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCC, "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created."--v/r - TP 18:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It does not show that it supersedes the 3RR rule. WP:3RRNO clearly states that unless there is unquestionably a copyright violation, and it should be established as a violation first before an exemption to the 3RR rule can be claimed. That does imply that the 3RR rule is more important when there are differing opinions, otherwise why would the word "unquestionably" be there?   Hzh (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed it and I think the copyright complaint is valid and meets the WP:3RR exemption. That's why uninvolved administrators make the determination and not editors in the dispute.  I've outlined why I feel it was more prudent to protect the page and why I feel Werieth's complaint is valid on the article talk page.  As far as I'm concerned, this 3RR case is over.  Unless you're volunteering yourself, Teddy, and Bertaut for a block for restoring copyrighted materials?--v/r - TP 19:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If there is a dispute over WP:NFCC, then there are always differing opinions. By User:Hzh's arguing, this would mean that WP:3RRNO §5 never applies. That is obviously not what the person who wrote that line meant. No opinion on whether the material unquestionably violates WP:NFCC as I haven't read the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In this case there are more than 2 editors involved (4 in fact, 3 of whom are opposed to Werieth's action), when there are multiple objections, I would take it as a clear case of no "unquestionable" violation. The wording of WP:3RRNO appears to me to be a caution against indiscriminate removal of content suspected to be of copyright violation when there are strong objections. Hzh (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @T - Re "Note that it is the duty of users ...... cannot be created." - Ok. Fair enough. You know, I've just reread some of the talkpage stuff, and I don't see that the editors trying to add the content ever attempted to offer a valid rationale. If they had, their WP:3RRNO argument might be more reasonable. I'd still tend to agree with Hzh in his assertion that WP:3RRNO's requirement that violations be "clear" and "unquestionable" probably supersedes the WP:NFCC argument, especially since so many have now questioned whether it was a clear violation. re "Unless you're volunteering yourself, Teddy, and Bertaut for a block for restoring copyrighted materials?" - That seems a tad threatening, no? Hzh's dissent is reasonable, whether or not it's right. You shouldn't be threatening with a block for that. NickCT (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It probably is a bit threatening, sorry. I get a tad annoyed when folks try to see sanctions on others when their own hands are just as dirty.  I believe that 3 editors teaming up to edit war is still edit warring.--v/r - TP 00:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @TP - Ah well..... I guess the wikidrama gets to us all now and then. NickCT (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Please also note I never invoked an issue of copyright, I invoked a clear violation of WP:NFCC specifically the replaceability clause, which these files clearly violate. Please note that I am not saying that text can completely replace them, but that free versions of these files can be created. See my repeated question on the talk page. So far the only response has been cricket chirps. To invoke WP:3RRNO all that needs to be established is that the files unquestionably violates the non-free content policy something that I have done, given the facts that this particular play is over 400 years old and outside of every know copyright law in existence, creating free images based off of it is fairly easy, ask an artist, request an image or two from some group already preforming it to be released under a free license, or to get some actors/actresses together and stage a scene or two for photos is do able. All three of those methods would produce a freely licensable image, which means that the files in question fail WP:NFCC by a wide margin. Making a WP:3RRNO#5 defense 100% correct. Werieth (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm going to have to agree that not all of the images that Werieth was removing were necessary clear copyright problems to evoke the 3RR exemption. I don't believe any of them are appropriate, but there's some borderline and possibly improvement (the fact that the stage productions actually tried to similar blood, for example). This needed to go to discussion, and I don't think, even as a strong supporter of NFCC, that this case is a clear exemption. --M ASEM  (t) 19:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

User:SoapFan12 and User:CloudKade11 reported by User:Livelikemusic (Result: Both editors blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Comments:

Both SoapFan12 and CloudKade11 were involved in an edit-war over the character page of Steffy Forrester, which has gone on now for about 48 hours. Neither chose to take it to each other's talk pages, or the actual page's talk page to discuss. Instead, they involved themselves in an editing-war. Both users, as experienced editors of significant lengths of time, should know how to handle such situations to avoid things such as edit-warring. I was not sure if both users could be put into one category, so I included both of their edits back-to-back to avoid having to post the same post twice. However, if that is what's needed, I will do so. CloudKade also seems to have a bad history of edit-warring, given the discussions on their talk page.  livelikemusic  my talk page! 19:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Both editors blocked.--v/r - TP 19:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

User:162.129.251.72 reported by User:CaffeinAddict (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 21:38, 18 October 2013‎ CaffeinAddict (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,689 bytes) (-4,043)‎ . . (Undid revision 577743863 by 162.129.251.72 (talk) Clearly POV edit, see talk page) (undo)
 * 1) (cur | prev) 18:15, 18 October 2013‎ 162.129.251.72 (talk)‎ . . (18,732 bytes) (+4,043)‎ . . (→‎Cancer detection method) (undo)
 * 2) (cur | prev) 18:13, 18 October 2013‎ Jarkeld (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,689 bytes) (-4,042)‎ . . (Undid revision 577742851 by 162.129.251.72 (talk) contains POV, synthesis and various other errors) (undo | thank)
 * 3) (cur | prev) 18:09, 18 October 2013‎ 162.129.251.72 (talk)‎ . . (18,731 bytes) (+4,042)‎ . . (→‎Cancer detection method) (undo)
 * 4) (cur | prev) 18:06, 18 October 2013‎ Jarkeld (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,689 bytes) (-4,000)‎ . . (Undid revision 577741415 by 162.129.251.72 (talk) see: WP:BRD) (undo | thank)
 * 5) (cur | prev) 17:59, 18 October 2013‎ 162.129.251.72 (talk)‎ . . (18,689 bytes) (+4,000)‎ . . (→‎Cancer detection method) (undo)
 * 6) (cur | prev) 17:55, 18 October 2013‎ Jarkeld (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,689 bytes) (-4,000)‎ . . (Undid revision 577740063 by 162.129.251.72 (talk) rv: possible POV, Synthesis. Please discuss before readding) (undo | thank)
 * 7) (cur | prev) 17:49, 18 October 2013‎ 162.129.251.72 (talk)‎ . . (18,689 bytes) (+4,000)‎ . . (→‎Cancer detection method) (undo)
 * 8) (cur | prev) 17:38, 18 October 2013‎ CaffeinAddict (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,689 bytes) (-4,245)‎ . . (Undid revision 577736419 by 162.129.251.72 (talk) Possible POV edit, with suspicious sourcing.) (undo)
 * 9) (cur | prev) 17:17, 18 October 2013‎ 162.129.251.72 (talk)‎ . . (18,934 bytes) (+4,245)‎ . . (→‎Cancer detection method) (undo)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

POV editing, keeps being reverted, there have been 5 reverts today. CaffeinAddict (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark Arsten (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Kingfrogger666 reported by User:88.104.25.210 (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

 (cur | prev) 04:38, 19 October 2013‎ 88.104.25.210 (talk)‎. . (7,112 bytes) (-22,452)‎. . (Undid revision 577803400 by Kingfrogger666 (talk)) (undo) (cur | prev) 04:37, 19 October 2013‎ Kingfrogger666 (talk | contribs)‎. . (29,564 bytes) (+22,452)‎. . (Undid revision 577803360 by 88.104.25.210 (talk)) (undo) (cur | prev) 04:36, 19 October 2013‎ 88.104.25.210 (talk)‎. . (7,112 bytes) (-22,452)‎. . (Undid revision 577803285 by Kingfrogger666 (talk)) (undo) (cur | prev) 04:35, 19 October 2013‎ Kingfrogger666 (talk | contribs)‎. . (29,564 bytes) (+22,452)‎. . (Undid revision 577803061 by 88.104.25.210 (talk)) (undo) (cur | prev) 04:32, 19 October 2013‎ 88.104.25.210 (talk)‎. . (7,112 bytes) (-22,452)‎. . (Undid revision 577802959 by Kingfrogger666 (talk)) (undo) (cur | prev) 04:30, 19 October 2013‎ Kingfrogger666 (talk | contribs)‎. . (29,564 bytes) (+22,452)‎. . (Undid revision 577802897 by 88.104.25.210 (talk)) (undo) (cur | prev) 04:29, 19 October 2013‎ 88.104.25.210 (talk)‎. . (7,112 bytes) (-22,452)‎. . (Undid revision 577802109 by Kingfrogger666 (talk)) (undo) (cur | prev) 04:18, 19 October 2013‎ Kingfrogger666 (talk | contribs)‎. . (29,564 bytes) (+22,452)‎. . (Undid revision 577801561 by 88.104.25.210 (talk)) (undo) (cur | prev) 04:16, 19 October 2013‎ 88.104.25.210 (talk)‎. . (7,112 bytes) (-22,453)‎. . (undo) (cur | prev) 04:15, 19 October 2013‎ Kingfrogger666 (talk | contribs)‎. . (29,565 bytes) (+1)‎. . (undo) (cur | prev) 04:11, 19 October 2013‎ Kingfrogger666 (talk | contribs)‎. . (29,564 bytes) (+22,452)‎. . (Undid revision 577801561 by 88.104.25.210 (talk)) (undo) (cur | prev) 04:10, 19 October 2013‎ 88.104.25.210 (talk)‎. . (7,112 bytes) (-22,452)‎. . (refs or it didn't happen. WP:V, etc; come on fam; you know the drill. WP:BURDEN -give refs, or don't add it. Simple. Undid revision 577801199 by Kingfrogger666 (talk)) (undo) 88.104.25.210 (talk) 04:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Anon has been blanking this and other articles. Anon and not the editor should be blocked. A simple examination of the edit history of the article in question will show this.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clare_Devine&diff=577798513&oldid=577790089
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clare_Devine&diff=577800807&oldid=577800639
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clare_Devine&diff=577801561&oldid=577801199
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clare_Devine&diff=577802002&oldid=577801906
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clare_Devine&diff=577802897&oldid=577802109
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clare_Devine&diff=577803061&oldid=577802959
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clare_Devine&diff=577803360&oldid=577803285
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clare_Devine&diff=577803491&oldid=577803400
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clare_Devine&diff=577803684&oldid=577803566
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clare_Devine&diff=577803978&oldid=577803775
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clare_Devine&diff=577804134&oldid=577804064
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clare_Devine&diff=577804502&oldid=577804284
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clare_Devine&diff=577804911&oldid=577804595
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clare_Devine&diff=577805179&oldid=577805015
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clare_Devine&diff=577798513&oldid=577790089
 * I'm counting 15 reverts in just over two hours. Anon made claims that WP:BURDEN was sufficient reason to edit war and blank. However it's clear that the material may be challenged, with citation needed, not by blanking material. The only reason I became involved was because the accused editor posted to the wrong long location and I noticed the comments there. I have no interest in the subject or either editor. At this point, I'm going to request a content dispute lock on the article and then wash my hands of this mess. Perhaps a length block for the anon and a few hours for registered editor for not following WP:BRD. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Now also at WP:ANI, and a matching AN/3RR report below ES  &#38;L  11:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: Article protected by User:Calmer Waters. EdJohnston (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not a result. It's cop-out. Anon was behaving inappropriately and the reported editor was as well. What's just happened is that you have condoned the bad behaviour first by not acting quickly and then by saying "it's OK, I'll lock the page so on one can edit it". Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Abhishek191288 reported by User:Superfast1111 (Result: protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff]
 * 2) [diff]
 * 3) [diff]
 * 4) [diff]

He has put a note on my talk page. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Yes. No agreement reached.

Comments:

We have had disputes in the past. I am trying my best to understand what he is upset about. But he has only been adding reading policies as his response. I am not convinced even after having read them. And thanks to the reversions am close to the 3RR limit. A little help would be appreciated. Superfast1111 (talk) 07:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You got some help on the article talk page from I'd take their advice to heart because the edit warring on the page by both of you is disruptive, and the "discussion" on the talk page is not constructive.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Neither of you have broken 3RR yet, but you both have a significant history of edit warring. I have protected the article for 2 days - take this time to have a productive discussion on the talk page, or consider opening a thread at DRN. Also, next time you make a report here, please actually include the diffs requested. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

User:88.104.25.210 reported by User:Dream Focus (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)

Comments:Rude IP address who only started editing today, already edit warring all over the place.  D r e a m Focus  09:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Is this not related to the entry 2 above this one? ES  &#38;L  09:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ...and now also at WP:ANI ES  &#38;L  11:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: Article fully protected two days by User:Calmer Waters. EdJohnston (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, that's not a result. When two registered users report an anon for inappropriate behaviour, and the "solution" is to lock the page, the message sent to all anons (and this one in specific) is clear: they can do whatever they want as long as they go big. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

User:76.112.8.146 reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: See notes after diffs

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  - 01:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC) restoration of insignificant content to lead that made treatment of the response to the organisation non-NPOV
 * 2)  - "Undid revision 577652524 by AussieLegend"
 * 3)  - restoration of category that had been removed because article is already in a subcat.
 * 4)  - restoration of reworded version of content mentioned in diff #1
 * 5)   - Restoration (again) of parent cat and completely changing note in the categories section

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Attempts are in all sections except "Affiliated international legal entities".

Comments:

Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is an article that is periodically the subject of some emotional and POV editing, althoughit has been relatively stable for months. On 18 October User:76.112.8.146 changed that by editing the lead of the article in such a way that it introduced a negative POV into what should be a summary of the main points in the article. Although it is well documented in the article, all mention of support for the organisation was removed from the lead and the opoosition was supplemented with a cherry-picked section from the "Government response" section which, in the great scheme of things is not all that significant. Because of this I reverted the edits but the content was restored and a citation needed tag was added to the content that was documented further in the article. Since this time, the IP has persistently reverted changes to the article as shown in the diffs above. After the IP added a category of which the article was already a memeber of a subcat, I noticed that there were other categories that needed to be removed and did so. is a subcat of all of the categories that were removed. Meanwhile, the content that the IP had restored was removed by another editor. Subsequently, the IP restored a reworded, but still unnecessary, version of the content that he had previously added to the lead (there had been some rewording of the section by other editors but this seems appropriate), as well as the parent category. Attempts to explain why the category had been removed have been fruitless and the IP has again restored the category, as well as completely changing the note that I had left in the article for the benefit of those intending to add more categories, making it vague and useless. The IP has even tried removing a category from as a way of forcing his edits into the article. Of the five editors who have edited the article since the IP first appeared, only the IP has been unable to collaborate constructively. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hang on, I make good faith edits and you warn. I edit, you warn. I have been asking for help and you keep layering on the warning and reversions. I think it's funny that I keep trying to discuss it, following the BRD policy and everytime you disagree with my edit, you revert and warn. I'm surely not as good at you as reporting and documenting but anyone following your trail can see you've been doing the exact same things you're warning me of. I'm trying to remove POV from the article through discussion, collaboration and edits. You seem to be protecting it through templates, adding sarcastic looking welcome templates to my talk page, adding "tit for tat" and "3rr" warnings after doing the exact same thing yourself. I've read every warning you posted, double checked the policies and am trying to abide by them. But you MUST allow for your personal interest POV to decline in that article. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * And in regard to the category, sub categories of subcategories were created to attempt to remove the phrase "Eco-terorism" from showing on the categories at the bottom of the page, to the point where now they had invented a category solely for SSCS with nothing else in it so that they can argue "well it's already in a sub cat of a sub cat there's no need to put the eco-terrorim cat there any longer". Which does nothing for a reader of the article. Other admin have weighed in on the talk page that it should be there but that was ignored. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There have been plenty of attempts to engage you on the article's talk page, your talk page and even my talk page. As I've just explained to you on my talk page, removing from the article has nothing to do with hiding "Eco-terrorism". The category is not required because it's already in a subcat. Even if  did not exist,  would not be on the article page because  would be a subcat of . As for the "tit for tat" claim, that's disingenuous of you. As you well know, it was you who was adding "tit for tat" warnings, something I told you on your talk page. Four minutes after I warned you, you warned me. Shortly after you received a later warning, you again warned me. And so on. This has not been the case with any of the other involved editors. And just an FYI, I was required to notify you of this discussion (it says so in big red letters at the top of this page). Removing that notification claiming that it was a personal attack is highly inappropriate. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "it was you who was adding "tit for tat" warnings, something I told you on your talk page" Heh, is it worth me pointing out the obvious at this point? I think the break'll do us both some good. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * . I've locked the article for three days. Hopefully, the discussion on the talk page can be more constructive than it has been thus far. If not, dispute resolution should be the next step. I don't expect the edit war to continue after the lock expires. If it does, editors may be blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you sir. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem at the moment is that, despite numerous posts here, his talk page, my talk page and the article's talk page, the IP is persistent in the belief that categorisation "hides" things and I don't seem to be able to make him understand that it doesn't, even after directing him to WP:CAT. He's even in denial about suppressing content in the article, " I don't believe I suppressed anything" were his very words. This despite the fact that his very first edits to the article suppressed documented content in the article. Perhaps you can explain categorisation to him, because I've had no luck. I'm pretty much done at this point. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Good example, and keep reading to the present. Through discussion and collaboration I (and we) re-edited that positive statement to make more sense. It's now more grammatically correct and still just as positive. And now you say that I am suppressing the positive side of SSCS. Take a look at the current iteration of that sentence and tell me I am suppressing it. This is why I am feeling attacked. Even after coming to a consensus, Aussie is going to the beginning of the editing process and attacking my character instead of seeing the collaboration, recognizing that and continuing to more collaboration. I am trying right now to understand his position and he continues to insult my character on the SSCS talk page. I asked him politely there and on his own talk page to address the issue and to please stop addressing his view of my intelligence and character. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Amshermar reported by User:NeilN (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added image to page"
 * 2)  "Added image to page"
 * 3)  "Added image to page"
 * 4)  "Added image to page"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Pubic hair. using TW"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

New editor, only edit-warring to add his dick to article (told it was redundant).  Neil N  talk to me  20:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * First, NeilN, you made me burst out laughing with the "only edit-warring to add his dick to article" text. Second, because of your diff-links above, I just minutes ago noticed that he was changing the image with each edit (so maybe most of his additions are not technically reverts); apparently, he thought that all he had to do was change the image and it would be accepted. Third, editors who never respond to messages left on their talk pages (as though they didn't even know they got the messages or as though they didn't comprehend them), like the editor in question, irk me. Perhaps he didn't see the notifications at the top of his screen? After all, our WP:Notifications system doesn't use that big, yellow (what some describe as orange) bar anymore for registered editors. Flyer22 (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * . Since the fourth revert was more than 24 hours after the first, it's not a 3RR issue, and given that this is a brand-new editor, I'm willing to say it's confusion rather than edit warring. I've posed a more thorough welcome to his talk page, let's see if that works. I'll keep an eye on it. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Flyer22. I think that was an accurate, if somewhat exasperated, comment. Glad I could make you laugh though. I think they count as reverts as the same type of content is being added. It's like if an editor kept adding the same paragraph but changed some of the prepositions each time. Darkwind - no problem, thanks for keeping an on the article. -- Neil N  talk to me  23:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Exasperated? I didn't mean for it to bother you in that way, or for it to be a pain at all. Sorry about that. Flyer22 (talk) 23:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @Flyer22 Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant my initial comment, the one that had you laughing, was written with a touch of exasperation at the editor. -- Neil N  talk to me  01:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Just a notice that Amshermar moved on to penis photos on Urinary meatus. Liz Read! Talk! 00:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

User:70.190.253.77 reported by User:MilesMoney (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User insists that BRD and 3RR do not apply. MilesMoney (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

User:WDGraham reported by User:Ajh1492 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor is inconsistently operating in conflict with WP:OWN, nor following both WP:BOLD and WP:BRD and instigating a low-level revert war. Bringing it to the attention of an administrator prior to violation of WP:3RR. Good faith attempts have been made by this editor (here and here), but the editor reverts any good faith updates. It seems that the editor is protecting the status quo of a number of poorly written and WP:STUB articles in a potential violation of WP:OWN.


 * I've reverted the original edit, and once more when the reporting user restored his content rather than participate in the discussion I had started. I'll post a detailed response in a second. -- W.  D.   Graham  09:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've had a couple of disagreements with the reporting user in the last 24 hours, on two separate but related pages. The first was on Talk:SM-65D Atlas, where I opposed a merger he had suggested and he, out of nowhere, accused me of asserting ownership over the article without any evidence. I reminded him that making accusations without evidence is incivil. This morning I noticed some major changes to another article Atlas (rocket family) which I felt reduced the quality of the article, so I followed WP:BRD and reverted them, posting a detailed explanation on the talk page and notifying the user in question to try and promote a discussion. When he reverted me again I assumed it was a good faith mistake rather than an attempt to start an edit war, so I restored the status quo (my second and final revert) and again asked him to participate in the discussion. I had, and still have, no intention of making further edits to the article until a discussion has taken place. He then joined the discussion but repeated his accusations, again without evidence. I then asked him to be civil and refrain from making further unsubstantiated accusations, took a few minutes to cool down and then replied to the content issues he raised. I am not "revert[ing] any good faith updates" and have certainly not 3RRd - I followed WP:BRD once, and then reverted once more because I thought Ajh1492 had made a good-faith mistake. Had he reverted or edited further without discussion I would not have taken any action. -- W.   D.   Graham  09:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The editor has been from my first contribution to the article and a properly posted WP:merge of 4 low-quality WP:STUB articles into a single article in keeping with WP:Integrate, immediately rejected out of hand rather rudely - "'Yes, an article on the Atlas as a whole is useful, but we already have it so there's no need to destroy our coverage of individual variants just to create another page doing the same thing." . "'destroy our coverage" as a response to a valid WP:Merge request is rather uncivil, and appears, IMHO, as a violation of WP:OWN. The editor then takes this as a personal affront and immediately goes into a diatribe claiming an "'ad hominem argument, and could be conceived as a personal attack, so I'd suggest you consider retracting it.'" . I then attempt to make some edits on Atlas (rocket family) to meet some of the editor's objections to the merge request. The article in it's original state was evaluated as Start class . My in-progress updates resulted in the following article state  prior to the editor performing a wholesale revert of the article  which left it in a worse shape than the original state using a method usually reserved to skirt WP:3RR. The editor then continues with the "ad hominem" diatribe in this second article's comments . WP:BRD is not a process used to justify wholesale reverts. Ajh1492 (talk) 10:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I opposed your proposed merger because I didn't think it would improve the encyclopaedia. "Destroy" was perhaps a poor choice of word, but that was my opinion and I expressed it, and I don't think that I was incivil in doing so. By "our" I was referring to the Wikipedia community. And yes, if you accuse somebody of disruptive editing they are probably going to take offence. -- W.  D.   Graham  10:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That said, I do apologise if my comments caused offence to you - that was certainly not my intention. Can we please try to find some way to move on and resolve this disagreement by discussing the articles and edits, not the editors. -- W.  D.   Graham  10:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is the right forum for this discussion - I agree there is a disagreement here, but I wouldn't characterise it as an edit war, and I'm the one who is trying to encourage discussion. Mainspace editing has stopped, and I don't think there's been enough time yet for the discussion to take place. I'd like to try and resolve this amicably - Ajh1492 escalated this so quickly that the discussion wasn't given a chance - and if that doesn't happen then we should go through dispute resolution, but I don't see how administrator intervention would benefit the discussion at the moment. -- W.  D.   Graham  10:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Wholesale reverts of good-faith editing efforts without ANY discussion is not good WP etiquette and not in the spirit of WP:BRD. I'm invoking the administrator's review to prevent any WP:3RR violations (which is perfectly acceptable) and what I perceive as a possible WP:OWN issue. The open hostility ("'destroy our coverage" ) towards any good-faith editing is disturbing. Ajh1492 (talk) 10:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You've been assuming bad faith of me from the beginning. I have been trying to engage in a discussion, but you just came back criticising the changes I had made. I provided a detailed explanation of the first revert I made (which was a partial revert - I left your content changes in place, and some of the structural changes - I mostly just put back the table you'd split and moved the recent stuff back to the end of the timeline). It was in no way a "wholescale revert". I posted a clear explanation of this on the talk page, and put a notice on your page about the discussion in the hope that you'd participate. I feel that I acted fully within WP:BRD at this stage, however you reverted my first revert without participating in the discussion which I was trying to start. Fair enough, I shouldn't have reverted you again after that, and I acknowledge that, however I believed you had made a good faith mistake so rather than interpreting your action as edit warring, I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt by removing it and reminding you of WP:BRD. -- W.  D.   Graham  11:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Unless requested by an uninvolved party, I'm not going to make any further comments in this particular thread as I feel it is going nowhere. There's no edit war and no 3RR violations; I acknowledge that I am partly at fault for the dispute, but there are faults on both sides and I'm willing to accept that and move on. What we need is a calm, civilised discussion of the content issues, not accusations flying back and forth which is what this is turning into. I'm also going to take a 48 hour break from editing starting now because this discussion has got me so wound up that my last couple of comments on the matter have maybe not been as civil as they could have been. Ajh, please can we go back to the article talk page, put aside our differences and try to find a solution to the problem? -- W.  D.   Graham  11:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * . WDGraham has reverted twice. The "reverts" listed in this report are links, not diffs, and they show the three reverts of both parties (Ajh1492 has reverted once). I didn't look at anything but this article and this article's talk page, but both parties should not be reacting negatively to each other's comments. As such discussions go, any conduct comments are pretty mild. I agree with WDGraham that the two of you should go back to the talk page and discuss the issues. If you can't resolve them, then use dispute resolution, and this board is not the best place to do that.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Csi.southpark reported by User:AsceticRose (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 577976191 by Dailycare (talk) Unsourced claim. But I see that this is going to be a problem so I removed everyone."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 577933296 by Sepsis II (talk) give me a break that is a lie, check the sources and google it for yourself. Stop the vendetta"

See User_talk:Csi.southpark for some background.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

The article is restricted to 1RR. The user also violated 1RR at Israel article &, and then self-reverted. Ascetic Rosé   17:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I removed something that I wrote. I did this because I realized the having the article say the Jewish people and Samaritans descend from Canaanites is, while true, going to cause problems so I simply removed it. And yes in the process I also removed what someone else added to my edit. But had I left my original comment in place with the other users edit. It would have caused more problems. So I'm sorry that I violated the 24 hour rule, but what would you have had me do. Csi.southpark (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * He has reverted, let it go. Sepsis II (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Sepsis II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csi.southpark (talk • contribs) 19:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Ryulong reported by User:ChrisGualtieri (Result: Withdrawn)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Redirecting article @ 15:05, 20 October 2013
 * 2)  Redirecting article @ 16:26, 20 October 2013
 * 3)  Removing content @ 17:23, 20 October 2013
 * 4)  Removed same content @ 17:59, 20 October 2013
 * 5)  Removed another chunk @ 18:11, 20 October 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Ryulong is continuing to post messages to my talk page after I said I do not want to speak to him. Including reverting my removals of his posts.
 * 1)
 * 2)  Reminded him to kindly stay off my page.
 * 3)  Response to my 3RR warning. Acknowledged and removed.
 * 4)  Reverting my removal and demanding I speak to him.
 * 5)  Reverting both posts.
 * 6)  Reverting more of the same; his edit summary also accused me of refactoring his edits when I did no such thing.

Comments including talk page: Ryulong has previously redirected the article and it was contested. We are currently in mediation for Ghost in the Shell dispute and I've asked Ryulong to not continue edit warring and redirecting contested pages. And after the issue was raised at Mediation, Ryulong began this edit war redirecting and content removals. During the September redirecting it went to the talk page at Talk:Dragon_Ball_%28anime%29. As I was addressing the "citation needed" templates, Ryulong broke 3RR and I was unable to continue lest I broke 3RR as well. Many citations are off Anime News Network and I managed to do two before he broke 3RR and again removed the material. The issue was touched upon in the mediation prior to his redirect and removals. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ChrisGualtieri cannot be trusted to discern what does and what does not count as a violation of WP:3RR as he called my edits at (now a redirect) a means to game him into violating 3RR himself when I was adding content in good faith. This request should be dismissed as there is clearly no edit warring going on after my second attempt to restore the redirect, and instead good faith edits to remove disputed and unsourced content.— Ryulong  ( 琉竜 ) 18:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Additionally, he has previously been admonished for demanding that people not post to his page when he is actively communicating with them elsewhere. And this edit is most definitely refactoring my comments.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 18:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ChrisGualtieri also mysteriously leaves out the fact that this edit ("Removed same content @ 17:59, 20 October 2013") was eventually followed by this edit, which effectively restored the information, but in a different format.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 18:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * - I see plenty of reverts to go around. No, Ryulong, you don't get to keep making reverts to an article after being warned to stop just because you think it's right. And no, you don't get to post on his talk page when he asks you to stop. I think I should block both of you. Please tell me why I shouldn't. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I made two very clear reverts in this whole debacle: redirecting the page a second time and removing the songs section. It could be argued that I did that twice, but I restored the content removed, in part. And ChrisGualtieri has demanded me to stop posting on his talk page today and twice in August. How the hell am I supposed to communicate with someone that I constantly seem to get into disputes with if not on their talk page? And I'm not totally sure I gave you a good enough reason so 24 hours sounds like a good plan.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 19:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me state this simply; I should not be blocked because after many months of issues with this user we are in formal mediation which I filed because of content dispute at Ghost in the Shell. He has previously redirected articles after they were contested; and I note WP:BLAR is against continually redirected pages that are contested and says they should go to AFD. This is part of why the mediation was made. I did not refactor his post, I simply undid them as Davidwr posted I could not rollback. He made two edits which I undid. Now Ryulong is abusing the notification system with "thanks spam" by "thanking" every edit and will post print screen if asked. I am doing everything I can to solve the underlying content issues and Ryulong has repeatedly continued to create new issues and be incivil. After providing a diff and a context for the mediator, Ryulong shoots back "stop whining". Ryulong knows about 3RR very well and if this is not 3RR than re-redirecting a restored article after repeatedly being informed of WP:BLAR should be a sign if not bringing me to 3RR or breaking to prevent improvements and doing so with numerous talk page posts and notification spam. Oh and to be clear, I did not break 3RR. I let Ryulong's last 2 go uncontested since it seems that he would not even allow the citations to be made before removing the text. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't need to screencap, and yes that was very childish of me. But I am up to here with dealing with your nonsense on these pages, your spurious reports on my behavior and of others when they've proven to be unfounded, and your lording over every single discussion on manga and anime because you have to clearly be right about everything. I am on the verge of pressing "Log out" and deleting every single fucking cookie of this website off of my computer after having spent 7 years on this damn website because of you.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 19:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As I stated, perhaps you both deserve to be blocked, but I'm not going to be the one to do it, because I don't think it will help improve anything. Ryulong, you are clearly losing your cool here; could you take an hour or two off to cool down a bit? I don't have anything against you. Meanwhile, can you see that other people have different opinions from you about what should be in what article, and that you can't just go reverting at will when they disagree? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not to pry, but what I have done to "deserve" blocking? I did not break 3RR, I contested the first redirecting and the article was stable until the related issue came up in mediation where Ryulong decided to again re-redirect it, twice. I was fixing the citation needed tags and have already pointed out that the censorship section while accurate, just needs the episodes or comparisons to be cited which I was doing as this happened. It is a lot easier to say "if you can't cite these by tomorrow I'll remove them" to which I'd say "sure" because I can get most of them, but I do not personally remember the bit about Blue and I rather get the important information right first. Aside from it airing on July 23 instead of August, there isn't anything wrong with the actual text besides its lack of citations to primary sources and a nice comparison shot. Covered at the Wikia already... some pages even have sources to follow. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's 04:30 JST right now so perhaps it is not the best time to do make such decisions. And I'll restore the censorship section as it feasibly could be sourced, but that music section was just awful and I have this feeling I may have been involved in its original formatting.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 19:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: I've put the mediation on hold until this thread and the AfD discussion at Articles for deletion/Dragon Ball (anime) are concluded. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 05:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please close this, consider this withdrawn or whatever, I want the mediation to continue. Violation or no violation, if I messed up on the definition of 3RR please tell me and Ryulong on my talk page as I believe 4 reverts including different or the same content being altered by any editor out of order to be a 3RR issue. If there is a violation, do not block him, by Ryulong's logic there was no 3RR violation. The page is at AFD as it should be. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think blocks are needed here. My reasoning follows: I don't think Chris broke 3RR here, based on my count he only made three reverts and then stopped reverting: . Whether Ryulong broke 3RR is more complicated. this is a revert of this, this is a revert of this, and this is a revert of this. So whether he broke 3RR depends on if you see this as a revert. I suppose one could make the argument that it was a partial revert because he was technically removing information that Chris added in this edit, but as it was a very selective revert I'm not inclined to count it. So my feeling is no blocks are needed here, but both parties need a strong warning not to bush up against the bright line in the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Jerry Pepsi reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: No action)
Page: (and others)

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

See Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive815 and Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_14 They've had warnings for edit warring from three independent authors already – see also User_talk:Jerry_Pepsi.

The crux of this is about categorization related to the James Bond films. They've stripped locations from the general film category, sometimes with (but frequently not) with the edit summary "locations aren't defined by being in a film". They have a point, but there are cases when there is a significant relationship worthy of categorization (see discussion on the ANI link). Likewise "Series characters are not independently notable" (from their attempt to delete yet another category at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_14) seems to be implying that such minor topics can never be notable, rather than the more widely held view that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and is required to be (but potentially can be) demonstrated separately.

There is no support for their deletions from other editors (see the ANI link), just concern over their edit-warring and their attitude to other editors. The greatest support they've had so far was mine, and that was pretty sparing. They've made no real attempt to discuss these changes, not gained any support for them, and where reverted they're edit-warring to push their unique viewpoint. Mostly they reject discussion as not being "ON AN APPROPRIATE TALK PAGE", which seems to mean any location other than where other editors are already trying to discuss it. Their ANI response was basically stonewalling. I raised this Bond issue at Category_talk:James_Bond_films, but they've ignored that too.

They've also listed Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_14 for deletion and prodded at least one individual entry from it, Tatiana Romanova. Clearly an editor who just doesn't like James Bond, or categorization. A look over their entire editing history (it doesn't take long) shows the view that the way to build an encyclopedia is to delete it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * . The problem is I see no real consensus at ANI. One administrator told Jerry that he should follow WP:BRD, which he isn't doing, but I wouldn't call that a consensus. At the same time, when I look at the article you reported here and at Nene Valley Railway, both of you are edit-warring. Jerry may be more in the wrong by not discussing it after you revert his edit, but that doesn't entitle you to battle it out. You may find another administrator who will view this differently, but my suggestion is to go back to ANI if you want to establish that Jerry's removal of these cats is sanctionable.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

User:47.64.227.224 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Long-term edit-warring and socking by to categorize anything and everything as German inventions. This is now bright-line 3RR EW by this one unconfirmed IPsock. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * by User:Rschen7754 for sock puppetry.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

User:99.238.140.176 reported by User:Lawrencekhoo (Result: pending changes)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Exhortations to take the addition to the talk page:, Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Although not breaking 3RR right now, IP is clearly edit warring against multiple editors, has previously broken 3RR before, has received multiple warnings, and has been blocked for exactly this same offense. (See his talk page, which he has now blanked, showing that he has read it.) IP comes back to edit war over exactly the same issue after his block expired.

Action should be taken to prevent defamatory material from being continually re-inserted into a BLP. LK (talk) 08:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * to block as I'm not seeing a 3RR violation, but I've placed the page under pending changes. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

User:WeldNeck reported by User:Cjhanley (Result: no action taken)
Page:

User being reported:

Version before WeldNeck's edit warring:

Diffs of some of the user's edit warring and reverts:
 * 1)  8 August: Deletes important sentence without explainer (SEE COMMENTS BELOW FOR GENERAL BACKGROUND TO WELDNECK'S DAMAGING EDITS, REVERTS; 58 EDITS SINCE AUGUST)
 * 2)  8 August: Removes witness, illogical reason.
 * 3)  8 August: Removes "massacre" twice, though that's article's title.
 * 4)  9 August: Misrepresents analyst's call for integrity process, attributing it instead to South Koreans.
 * 5)  9 August: Removes key source, North Korean journalist.
 * 6)  19 August: Removes leading scholar from Further Reading because dislikes his views.
 * 7)  7 October: Reverts fixes to Aerial imagery section with dismissive few words.
 * 8)  7 October: Misleads on which investigators found 2nd Battalion responsible.
 * 9)  7 October: Removes entire Korean commission description of events, without discussion, explanation.
 * 10)  9 October: Falsifies description of Navy document re strafing civilians, adding nonexistent exculpatory clause (sugarcoating)
 * 11)  9 October: A dozen highly objectionable changes, including falsifying the description of Army "shoot refugees" documents by adding nonexistent sugarcoating clauses, and deleting without explanation an ex-soldier's testimony that they were told to shoot "everyone from 6 to 60."
 * 12)  9 October: Deletes Pentagon statement that discredited witness wasn't essential to investigation; no explanation, as usual.
 * 13)  10 October: Reverts contributor's removal of extraneous material.
 * 14)  15 October: Again reverts contributor's fixes to his Aerial imagery edits.
 * 15)  15 October: Deletes sentences noting, with citation, AP refutation of attacks on its journalism, and NY Times article supportive of AP.
 * 16)  18 October: Though warned in Talk that "infiltrators" in official Army history doesn't mean enemy disguised as refugees, inserts actions involving infiltrators to build case against refugees.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:No Gun Ri Massacre: "If anyone has any further 'documented' issues to raise (to use WeldNeck's term) -- that is, specific, sensible questions, not the wild fantasies and fabrications of Robert Bateman, a former officer of the very regiment responsible for the killings -- it is appropriate first to do so here on the Talk page, to start a reasoned discussion and take advantage of what knowledgable people know, and not to take us back to the days of nonsensical inserts and overwrites that served no one except those who would like No Gun Ri to simply go away. Even before that, one should review the previous Talk discussions of body count and other matters".

Comments:

This article deals with the U.S. military's large-scale killing of South Korean refugees at No Gun Ri early in the Korean War, an event first confirmed by The Associated Press in 1999, reconfirmed and elaborated upon by other news organizations, and then affirmed in investigations by the U.S. and South Korean governments. From the beginning, before the government investigative reports, apologists for the U.S. military, and in particular for the responsible 7th U.S. Cavalry Regiment, have attacked the messengers, the media, over this blot on the U.S. record. From 2006 to 2011, the Wikipedia article fell under their sway, and in the process turned into a useless, incoherent mess. In 2012, it was brought back into shape as a solid, factual, highly informative and readable WP article. Now with WeldNeck's intervention, particularly with his efforts to "sugarcoat" the facts and revive long-ago discredited attacks on the media, it is slipping into tendentiousness and sloppiness again. He has made 58 edits since August, with 35 in October alone. It has been very difficult for contributors even to keep up with the many, many ways he has altered the article. Among the most serious and damaging changes have been his adding of nonexistent exculpatory clauses in describing declassified military documents that authorized the indiscriminate killing of civilians in Korea 1950 (clauses such as "as warranted," or "when they were suspected to be North Korean forces"; such qualifiers don't appear in the documents, which were reported in media and other reliable sources and can be linked to from the article); his deletion of sentences in the WP article that reflect negatively on the U.S. military or officials, such as his elimination, in two places, of the fact that the U.S. Army, by its own admission, deliberately omitted the highly incriminating "Muccio letter" from its investigative report, and his deletion, as usual without explanation, of an ex-soldier's testimony that troops were told to shoot "everyone from 6 to 60"; his misattribution to Korean investigators of findings or statements made by American investigators or by both Korean and American investigators, in an apparent belief that removing the American attribution weakens the point; deleting a sentence noting the U.S. Army failed to investigate No Gun Ri in 1950, although it knew about the killings then. Many more errors and problems were introduced, including some petty ones, such as his removal from the Further Reading list of a leading scholar of this period of the Korean War because WeldNeck doesn't like his political views. (Please see Talk:No Gun Ri Massacre for further details). WeldNeck posts at Talk, but almost always in a confrontational, not conciliatory way, dismissing fellow contributors or attacking their integrity, very rarely engaging directly with the substance of an error or overreach that's pointed out to him, but instead reverting to his error-plagued material when others correct it. WeldNeck’s actions at this page are reminiscent of those months earlier of user Kauffner, who I understand was eventually banned from WP. I also understand WeldNeck was cleared of being a Kauffner sockpuppet. WeldNeck has been cautioned elsewhere for edit warring at another article. Being relatively new to WP, I don't know what action/sanction would be appropriate in this case. But I do know that WeldNeck's aggressiveness and determination to emasculate this WP article bodes ill for the truth and for efforts to make Wikipedia accurate and authoritative in this important historical area.Charles J. Hanley 14:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk • contribs)


 * If find these charges to be spurious as I have not been edit warring on this article. There have been only 4 or 5 reverts on the article in the past two month. Every edit I have made has been explained at great length on the talk page. ‎Cjhanley's objections can be summed up with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. He has a blatant WP:COI with regard to the article, even going so far as contacting the publishing company of an author critical of him and demanding thy not publish his book on this topic. This is a content issue, not a edit warring issue. WeldNeck (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This is typical: No one "demanded" the publisher do anything. The publisher (circa 2002) was warned that the author had been recklessly spreading nonsense on the Internet, and he'd be wise to fact-check his manuscript. Sadly for the truth, the publisher did not. Meanwhile, the edit warring speaks for itself. Charles J. Hanley 14:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)


 * Thats not how the president of the Poynter Institute, Nieman Foundation for Journalism and the ABFFE saw things:


 * "It's ironic for a journalist, someone whose livelihood is protected by the First Amendment, to be seemingly threatening to curtail the speech of a military person,' said James Naughton, president of the Poynter Institute, a journalism school in St. Petersburg, Fla. 'The way matters like this tend to get resolved over time is for people to be able to make their own judgments about which version of events holds up on examination. More access to publishable versions, rather than less, seems to be desirable.' At Harvard, Bob Giles, curator of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism, said that books about events that happened 50 years ago draw 'on the memories of many people who may or may not have been participants. So it's a subject of continued historical and scholarly investigation. Think of all the versions we have of events leading up to Pearl Harbor.' 'It seems to me to be out of bounds for one author to try to short-circuit the publication of another author's book,' said Chris Finan, president of the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression. 'It's extraordinary and alarming.'"


 * Once again, there is no edit warring. There are many changes and a great deal of discussion, but no edit warring. WeldNeck (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

This is silly, and ancient history. The communication with the publisher said explicitly, "We’re not questioning anyone’s `entitlement’ to get published. This is not about rights, but responsibilities, that is, the responsibility of a publisher to do its utmost to ensure that what it publishes is fair and truthful." Obviously, those quoted above never saw the letter and instead were misled by the truth-challenged author Bateman about its contents. It was "extraordinary and alarming" because it wasn't true. It also is 180 degrees off our subject today, which is WeldNeck's assault on the No Gun Ri article, as he tries to impose his POV heedless of the facts. Charles J. Hanley 18:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)


 * You are right, reporting me for edit warring is silly given that this is a content dispute. WeldNeck (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This type of dispute is better suited to WP:ANI. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Precision123 reported by User:Debresser (Result: warning)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous consensus version changed from:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Jews/infobox

Explanation of the conflict: Template:Jews/infobox is where the edit warring started. That template was merged into Jews per this discussion and the history was moved to Jews/infobox. history. The issue is whether or not English is nowadays the lingua franca of the Jewish people. The consensus version from before Precision123's first edit on October 10 did not make that statement, and Precision123 has been adding that statement repeatedly since October 10.

There is extensive discussion on the talkpage, with Precision123 pushing his point with awfully long posts. Three other editors, me included, have disagreed with him (one editor only partially, admittedly), and none have supported him. The template was fully protected for a week on October 11 because of Precision123 repeating his edit. Just two days ago the template was merged into Jews, and I reverted to the consensus version from before Precision123's edit. Precision123 just today added a Rfc tag to the talkpage discussion, and already made his edit again. And that is not withstanding the fact that nobody agrees with him.

In addition, he has been annoyingly highhanded in the discussion, making remarks like "It will soon be readded" and "I will probably not respond to further comments".

He also edits parts of the discussion that were made days ago, thereby confusing the discussion. In this and this edit, or this one today, he adds information to the top of the discussion, and inthis one, he changes his previous comments. He did the same on WT:JUDAISM and I placed a warning on his talkpage. Debresser (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * While I am still new to editing and apologize for any disruption, I do not believe my behavior amounted to edit warring. I was only adding citations while Debresser continued to remove them. Debresser's contention that "three other editors have disagreed" with me is not true. In that pool of editors, Debresser includes (1) an editor (StevenJ81) that says specifically, "I'm afraid I have to agree with Precision123 on this issue"; and (2) an editor that made a single-sentence comment that indicated he did not fully understand the definition a lingua franca. The latter editor said nothing about the inclusion of the lingua franca in the infobox.


 * On the other hand, User:Debresser has been pushing his point of view without submitting a single source that expresses an alternative view. He first began reverting because he mistakenly believed that the source said that English is the lingua franca of Israel because he said it was "BS about English being a Lingua Franca in Israel," when in fact the source indicated English had become the lingua franca for Jews worldwide -- not in Israel. He never explained his views on the talk pages until I opened the discussion. He simply reverted and indicated personal disagreement with the source -- but never brought up a relevant Wikipedia policy or submitted a source indicating an alternative point of view.


 * He continued to revert on a constant basis, saying: "Even if some source would say that English is lingua franca, I am still sorry to say it is not. As a Jew who has been in many places, including the USA, Israel and West and Eastern Europe, I can tell you that I have seen Yiddish used as a lingua franca more than English." It is true that in many instances I became frustrated because I was submitting reliable sources while Debresser continued to reference only his own personal experiences and original research, but I always tried maintain a cool head. I explained this to him in discussion and politely on his talk page.


 * I note that I filled out a WP:Request for Comment and sought the advice of an administrator. As the number of reliable sources began to expand, I felt I had met the burden under WP:V and WP:RS for the cited material. I added more reliable sources to the list so that Debresser would end his reverts. He kept saying that the sources were not reliable enough because "[he did] not accept" the sources. Indeed, only Debresser was reverting while I continued to do more research and add citations.


 * If this amounted to edit warring, I sincerely apologize. I am new and obeyed the three-revert rule. Indeed, none of these reverts were the same; they all added more reliable sources. In addition, this was over the span of almost two weeks. I will continue to learn from this experience and negotiate politely with other editors. --Precision123 (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I also note that Debresser alleges five instances of revert. (1) The first one is one that I completed not involved in. (2) In the second one, Debresser misread the source, thinking, erroneously, that it "BS about English being the lingua franca in Israel" when that was not the case. So yes I reverted because he indicated that he misunderstood the source. (3) In the third one, Debresser had written something similarly confusing in the edit summary, never explained on the talk page. He [wrote: 1. Incorrect claim. English is no lingua franca. That was an exaggeration. 2. Why add French?" He never explained what this confusing argument meant or used a source to back it up. (4) The fourth one is also one in which I am not involved as a reverter. The article was reverted by [[User:Avaya1]], not because of my edits but rather because of another content dispute over size of the Jewish population. What Avaya1 had done was essentially to "throw the baby out with the bathwater," so I undid only that part. (5) As to the last one, this was one in which I had added more than five sources so that Debresser would be satisfied after saying: "If you can not find a second source, more explicitly discussing the issue, saying the same thing, this can not stay."


 * In addition, there was no solid consensus for the version that Debresser alleges. He argues this point to an admin. He never gained consensus for any of his reverts. --Precision123 (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If we're dealing with slow edit warring on multiple pages, then it seems WP:ANI would be a better place for this discussion. As it is, I don't see a 3RR violation and I don't think the reverts were on 1RR pages. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I have fixed the diffs. I apologize for the mistakes, partly a copy&paste error. Also, these are not multiple pages, but one and the same page that was merged, as I explained above. There is no 3RR violation, but a definite edit war, with 6 edits (5 partial reverts). Precision123's attitude only aggravates the situation. In his above posts he shows nothing of the arrogant attitude his displays on the talkpage, examples of which I have quoted above. His nice words above notwithstanding, he behaves like any edit-warrior I have seen in my over 5 years on Wikipedia. Please read the facts again, and let them speak for themselves. I do not ask for a block, but a firm warning definitely is in place, imho. Debresser (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, here's my opinion: Precision123: I'm not sure if this counts as a revert, I would tend to see it as a bold addition. This is revert #1, and a failure to follow WP:BRD. This is revert #2 a day later, again ignoring BRD. Then ten days later there's revert #3 here. I don't think that this is enough reverting to merit a block, but I think it is disruptive to continue reverting; instead, WP:BRD should be followed and we should wait for the conclusion of the RFC.
 * Debresser, by my count, has reverted four times: #1, #2, #3, and #4. This was also over 11 days, so it doesn't merit a block. So I have the same advice for Debresser as I gave to Precision123, please stop reverting and wait for the RFC to conclude.
 * To issue a block for slow edit warring, I would generally need to see >4 reverts or reverts in the face of an RFC consensus or similar. My decision here can be appealed to WP:ANI. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Kevinrexheine reported by User:Steelbeard1 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4) [diff]

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

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

Comments:

The editor in question is using a supporting citation which requires a subscription to read and thus cannot support the edit in question. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * . There's been no breach of WP:3RR. There's nothing wrong with using a subscription source (WP:PAYWALL), and, you shouldn't yell at the other user (using all caps frequently).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Abhi reported by User:Medeis (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This article came to my attention when it was nominated for ITN, here with an improper template. I defended the nomination here at ITN. I tagged the article for grammatical improvement here and returned here to follow up and correct grammar (verb usage and ten wrongly used articles in one paragraph alone) and idiom when I saw that only the first two paragraphs of the article had been corrected.

Nineteen minutes later more ungrammatical material was added and my corrections were reverted (diff). I reverted this, describing the edit as synthesis (it has nothing to do with the article topic) and restored the corrections (diff). This was again reverted with the instruction that I should fix Abhi's grammar (diff). I started a new section on the talk page to object the additions were the responsibility of the person adding them to correct (diff). This was met by the response: "I am writing almost whole article....I won't tolerate removal of contents just to fix missing 'a' or 'the'" and by another reversion with the command "Fix it or wait". I advised Abhi to fix the contributions before adding them again, and not to revert the corrections (diff), and warned him on his talk page not to edit war, and to do his additions without reverting the corrections. His response was he was "editor who created and wrote whole article" (diff), and another reversion (diff) and when I told him my edits to correct the grammar were solely aimed at improving the article, and that I wouldn't revert his edits if he would leave the corrections alone, (diff) he responded by tagging the article with the point that "as an Indian" and owner of the article he is entitled to his improper grammar, which he calls Indian English: "Tagged because this is India related article, written primarily by Indians. A user is wasting my time and edit-warring over Indian english" (diff).

The attitude here is obvious, that Abhi created the article, so he controls it, and that as a non-Indian, I should not be interfering by making it readable; that cooperation is unnecessary. Were it not for his ownership behaviour, I would have corrected the prose of the entire article by now, and would have been willing to follow up to fix anything needed in the future. Instead of restoring the corrections and edits, he encouraged this report on his talk page. Please warn Abhi his actions are neither according to policy nor in the best interest of the article. μηδείς (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * , in detail. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 04:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Hotwiki reported by User:MrScorch6200 (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "i just deleted unsourced materials w/c is the issue of another editor here and i also added sources for the filmography"
 * 2)  "you are not gonna delete the filmography, because they are accurate and just wait for me to include sources"
 * 3)  "there's nothing wrong with removing unsourced paragraphs, but to remove the entire filmography and yet keep the unsourced discography? I don't think so"
 * 4)  "/* Filmography */"
 * 5)  "/* Discography */"
 * 1)  "/* Filmography */"
 * 2)  "/* Discography */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Jolina Magdangal. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

There are most likely more reverts of the same content (discography and filmography), however the warring is a bit difficult to follow. (I suggest going into a bit more depth with it). MrScorch6200 (talk) 02:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You are doing this because of what? I just helped to improve the Jolina Magdangal article by maintaining the filmography section which is absolutely necessary since the subject of the article is also an actor and a TV personality. And I added a couple of sources so it won't be deleted again. And I also listened to the other editor's concern, so I deleted back the paragraphs (like endorsements and honorific titles) that doesn't have a source after I reverted the other user's edit.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 02:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * , your behavior on this article is pretty clearly edit warring. Since you don't seem to make a habit of edit warring, I don't see a need to block you over this. However, please control the urge to revert (especially for the second or third time) when you disagree with another editor. Also, the burden of proof is on the editor inserting material if it has been challenged by another user. Please do not insert the material in the article, and then edit war to keep it there while saying "wait for me to add sources".  Put the material in your sandbox, add the sources there, and then put it in the article. Doing otherwise contravenes WP:V. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 04:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

User:98.169.63.91 reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: See comments section

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 20:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC) - "Undid revision 570470954 by JDDJS (talk)(The Manual of Style encourages listing English speaking countries"
 * 2) 22:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC) - No edit summary
 * 3) 23:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC) - No edit summary
 * 4) 00:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC) - "Undid revision 577622069 by Geraldo Perez (talk))"
 * 5) 14:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC) - "Undid revision 577647190 by Geraldo Perez (talk) (What's wrong with tables?)"
 * 6) 16:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC) - No edit summary
 * 7) 19:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC) - "Undid revision 577990720 by AussieLegend (talk)(What's wrong with tables)"
 * 8) 22:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC) - "Undid revision 578039239 by JDDJS (talk)(can you tell me why these are bad?)"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

I've only come into this recently, but it seems the IP has been edit-warring over the iInternational broadcast section for some time, starting 10-12 September. Edits he made on 10 September were certainly vandalism. His first revert at the article was before the vandalism, but to be fair, this revert was appropriate, as the removal in toto of the "Worldwide release" was not appropriate. On 15 October, this edit apparently reverted all edits from the past two months and was reverted by another editor. He later did this again. Included in his reversions was the restoration of the "International release" table, which had been converted to prose per MOS:TV. Since then, he has been persistently restoring this table. Starting with this edit he has been asking in his edit summaries "What's wrong with tables?". However, he had already been told why prose was used back in September. He continues to ask even after I left an appropriate post on his talk page. I had made other fixes to the article, and he's now reverting these as well. I reported him to WP:AIV, but an admin determined his edits not to be vandalism and instead left him an edit-warring warning. Despite the warning, the IP has decided to revert again. Obviously this is not a 3RR breach, but it is edit-warring and this is not the only article where the IP has done this. On 8 October, the IP made edits that were subsequently reverted as disruptive at Disney Channel (Asia). Today he reverted the entire article back to his 8 October version. His only other edit for the day was the reversion at Phineas and Ferb the Movie. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Laser brain  (talk)  12:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Jerry Pepsi reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Locked)
Page:

User being reported:

On this article alone, amongst several others, we have 7 removals in the last week, 3 of which are in the last day. This user has been at ANI twice in the last week, and AN3 once (just above here), all with no action. Apparently this isn't edit-warring because consensus for this categorization is unclear. So 7RR is now OK then, so long as it's all a bit vague?

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

Andy Dingley (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I find it more than a little bit interesting that two IP editors who have no other contributions have suddenly jumped onto this article. Is Andy Dingley perhaps logging out and editing anonymously? Regardless, this endless string of reports from him in lieu of SPEAKING DIRECTLY WITH ME in an effort to build (or more correctly, understand the existing) consensus is as mystifying as it is tiring. If anyone can explain to me why multiple reports are better than engaging with an editor directly who has asked over and over again in forum after forum after forum it would be illuminating. An explanation as to how a railway is a James Bond film would also be appreciated.
 * There was no technical or spiritual violation of 3RR here. What is here is forum shopping by a disgruntled editor who doesn't like it when things don't go his way and complaining not only here but at CFD about it, desperately hoping for something to stick. It's abusive.
 * I'll ask one last time that the editor ENGAGE IN DISCUSSION. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * . I've locked the article for one week. I've also locked Piz Gloria for the same period.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

User:PeeJay2K3 reported by User:Greenman (Result: Locked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I have not personally been involved, but it's been discussed extensively on the talk page without consensus. It seems that this is a single editor intent on removing the content, while there have been three editors (not all involved in the talk page) restoring it.

Comments:

The user has also been warned about edit warring in this instance, and been warned on occasion in the past as well. Greenman (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

PeeJay2K3 is not breaking 3RR as the reverts are over four days. However as a senior editor, could have requested assistance on the page. With that said, the "by city" addition is complete crap and should not have been added, let alone restored after it was removed. I too would have reverted it. After it was removed for the second time, the adding editor should have discussed the situation, as should the removing editor, instead of edit warring. May I suggest invoking WP:SHOT? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I rather have WP:SHOT myself in the foot here, but given that two of the other three parties involved have not made any attempt to discuss the issue on the article talk page, I don't think it's fair to include my reverts of their edits in this accusation. Furthermore, the two uninvolved editors who have contributed to the discussion on the article talk page (User:Koppapa and User:Walter Görlitz) have both expressed their support for my position on the matter. – PeeJay 21:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * . Locked for three days by User:Mark Arsten.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Jimthing reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Protected one week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* External links */gens, create and move to iPad Mini (1st generation)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 578297433 by Walter Görlitz (talk) yes there is: clarity of link"
 * 3)  "/* External links */as per ALL other Apple pages before you came along: leave it as was!"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 578307932 by Walter Görlitz (talk) the link is not to a page about "x - official page" it's to one about "iPad Mini", hence piping SEPARATE to the link!"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Unconstructive editing"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

What part of my explanation is difficult for you to understand. It's you who continues to completely ignore that reasoning, repeatedly reverting unnecessarily, and not explaining your actions. Thanks for wasting an experienced users editing time on actual articles dealing with such trivialities. Jimthing (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments:

Both editors need to step back and seek other input in talk. To assist this I have protected the article for one week. While I judge Jimthing to have broken 3rr while Walter Görlitz has not, I feel that a block on either editor would be punitive at this stage. I will give both editors some advice in their talk. --John (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I will discuss and I don't need the advice. I think this is another admin cop-out as the other editor's argument as Wikipedia:Other stuff exists and not WP:EL, which takes precedent. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I am sorry you are not happy with this. If you like, I can ask for a second admin opinion. Would you like me to do this? I haven't archived this report yet in case anyone else wasn't happy with it. If you are happy to go along with what I obviously think is the best way forward, you need do nothing and I or someone else will archive this. --John (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer John. No, upon reconsideration, mercy is the better choice. I suspect that the editor will find his (assuming male based on user name, apologies if that's not the case) way here again, and I suspect I may find myself here as well. I'm fine with discussing for now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

User:158.58.234.92 reported by User:RJFF (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Page has repeatedly been "battlefield" of politically motivated edit-warring.


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 06:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

User:14.139.187.130 reported by User:Sitush (Result: 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Entire user talk page - umpteen warnings

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Repeated addition of unsourced info/attempts to sanitise to suit a POV agenda have been reverted by a multitude of editors. There is a lot of talk page discussion generally but this anon is plain pov-pushing.

Comments:

I'd be reluctant to see this article semi'd right now because some other IPs do no harm. - Sitush (talk) 04:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Clear brightline violation of 3RR. This IP editor has been using peacock terms such as "legendary". Binksternet (talk) 04:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 06:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Report by User:Eshwar.om (Result: Malfomed)
People ganging together and stopping my edits on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva. This is the talk page people ganging together [].Plese kindly help anybody.Thank you-- Eshwar .om Talk tome 07:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This editor has found Why Wikipedia is not so great and copied some of it to his talk page, including something about gangs of editors taking over Wikipedia He appears to believe that if he is reverted by more than one person this shows there is a gang of editors doing something they shouldn't be doing. Needs someone uninvolved to explain that other editors reverting him might not be them edit warring against him. Dougweller (talk) 10:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Based on the user's history, language issues, unwillingness to listen to others, and mindset, I see little point in talking to them. Another administrator may be more sanguine.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Johnnicoll123 reported by User:This is Drew (Result: declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * - You are supposed to engage in dispute resolution before hitting the revert button multiple times yourself, and you are supposed to warn the user about the 3RR rule before reporting that user. Try dispute resolution. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Skyring reported by User:Skyring (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) 14:59, October 22, 2013 Changes "program" to "concept"
 * 2) 15:06, October 22, 2013 Removes reference from article.
 * 3) 15:50, October 22, 2013 Removes "program" from article.
 * 4) 15:53, October 22, 2013 Removes reference from article.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Can't find anything specific -this just came out of the blue.

Comments:

I'm self-reporting here, looking for advice. I got this message on my talk page, telling me ''You appear to be engaged in an edit-war (diffs as above). Please note that at the absolute maximum, you are allowed WP:3RR within 24 hours. You appear to be at 4RR in less than an hour. If you continue to edit-war, you may be blocked from the article.''

What's the strength of this? The article, BTW, concerns a somewhat nebulous spaceplane, which seems to have been on the drawing board for about a decade under two different names, and is currently not much more than a nosewheel and some rocket motors and a lot of hype. Our article contains large swags of material based on primary sources from the company website and I've been cutting these back with the aim of replacing anything useful from secondary sources of which there are a few useful examples, such as the Smithsonian. --Pete (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * - In order to qualify as a revert, the edits cannot be consecutive, i.e., part of the same sequence of edits. And to answer your question, we enforce the 3RR rule quite strongly. If you have other questions about how to handle disputes or poorly sourced material, feel free to ask at the help desk. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Werieth reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: warned)
Page:

User being reported:


 * First removal of images: 22:01, 16 October 2013
 * 1st revert: 20:45, 22 October 2013
 * 2nd revert: 16:41, 23 October 2013 (partial revert)
 * 3rd revert: 17:23, 23 October 2013

This isn't a 3RR report, but one for a slow edit war, which Werieth has indicated he will continue. Werieth is not involved in editing the article, but has arrived to remove several fair-use images; he seems to be doing this on several articles at the moment. The removal leaves the images orphaned and therefore eligible for speedy deletion.
 * Comments

The images are: (1) a close-up image of Madeleine's right eye, which is distinctive; (2) an artist's impression of a suspect; and (3) three e-fits released by Scotland Yard of men they want to trace. All the images have been released to the public for dissemination, but not legally released. They have been widely published and discussed by the media, and are discussed in the article, so the non-free-content rules appear to be satisfied.

I've asked Werieth to nominate the images for deletion if he disagrees, but he hasn't responded, except to say that he will return in "a day or two" to remove others. I tried to join a discussion on his talk page, started by others, about how he appears to have misunderstood the non-free content policy, but he removed my post twice without comment. I asked him to respect WP:BRD, but he ignored the request and left a templated warning on my talk page. 

I'm bringing this here in the hope that an admin will be willing to ask him to stop reverting, and instead to nominate the images for deletion if he believes they violate the rules. I wouldn't normally post here for three reverts, but the images will be speedy deleted if they are left unused. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The files that I am removing dont meet WP:NFC I dont need to file an FfD to remove non-complaint files. SlimVirgin if you dont like policy change the policy. But the files Im removing are no where near meeting NFCC. Werieth (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * And they are filing this as a retaliatory action for my warning on their talk page. Werieth (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * One could equally argue that your warning to them was in retaliation to their more-or-less friendly note on your talk page that you deleted, so that's a non-starter. Generally speaking, and in my layman's opinion: Werieth, the NFCC are subjective; they are not black-and-white, so if someone challenges your judgement, you need to be prepared to discuss it with them rather than edit-warring.  Naturally, the same thing goes for SlimVirgin, though this appears to be long-term behavior for you, Werieth.  Everyone appreciates your efforts in enforcing the NFCC, but there is such a thing as throwing the baby out with the bathwater: you need to stop taking the position that you are the sole arbiter of what meets the NFCC and what doesn't, and that everyone else is wrong. Again, for the most part, the NFCC are subjective, so they are things that should be discussed. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I am discussing issues, Media_copyright_questions is just one example. SlimVirgin's argument has been that I cant remove the file unless I file an FfD, which is invalid. Werieth (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is yet another case that while I agree with Werieth with the images being inappropriate to include under NFCC per my subjective opinion (we are not a site to help policy/public locate missing children), there is no exemption here for 3RR and the matter should have been raised on WP:NFCR instead of edit-warred. --M ASEM (t) 18:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The second part of my sentence was "rather than edit-warring". Your discussion with SlimVirgin over this issue was virtually nonexistent, and it sure didn't stop you from edit-warring about it. The exemption from 3RR for NFCC only counts for "content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC)." (emphasis original) It goes on to say that "what counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first." You cannot say that "BRD doesnt apply to NFC removals", as you did here; it does apply when the NFCC violation is questionable, and if an editor in good standing has reverted the removal in good faith, then it is ipso facto a questionable violation. Conclusion: if challenged in good faith, you must stop removing the images and start discussing things. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I can appreciate that Werieth is trying to uphold his interpretation of a Wikipedia policy, but he's doing so in an unecessarily heavy-handed way, without discussing what he's doing with editors who disagree with him. As noted above, NFC is subjective, and it therefore requires discussion, instead of threats of blocking! I tried to tell Werieth that he was being unnecessarily irritating on his user talk page, but he appears to disagree: User_talk:Werieth. He also seems to think that enforcing NFC frees him from normal editing behavior--see this edit summary. So I don't know if Werieth is edit warring, exactly, but when he doesn't explain himself and repeatedly removes images while other users disagree with him, it sure looks like edit warring. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I can raise an additional matter about Werieth's dealing with NFCC matters at Bibliotheca Teubneriana, where he removed an image three times without starting a section on the talk page, and only in the last edit summary providing anything like an indication of how the image violated NFC. Oh, and as an added touch, after he removed the image for the third time, Werieth threatened to block User:Wareh, the user who had replaced the image: . Then Wareh started a discussion on Werieth's user page, which quickly turned into a futile conversation. Note that at no point did Werieth start a discussion on the article's page, so other users who are interested in what's happening have to go to the article history and then go to Werieth's user talk page.
 * - As someone familiar with NFCC and the EW noticeboard, I must say that I agree with the above three assessments. Policy actually says that only uncontroversially non-free images may be removed without discussion. Otherwise, the proper recourse is to use WP:NFCR, and to leave the image on the article while the discussion is taking place. We also have the somewhat antiquated system of tagging a file with {{subst:dfu}}, but I don't recommend when there is pushback from another editor. As such, I must agree that Werieth has acted improperly, and should respect the process. I would prefer not to "warn" Werieth, but if I must, then I must: Werieth must stop edit warring immediately, on penalty of a further warning and a possible block. Technically, SlimVirgin has edit warred as well, but it seems to me that this is a rare case when such an action is acceptable, because the image immediately becomes speedyable as orphaned fair use. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * - Officially tagging this thread as over for now, and the user as warned. See my comments above. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Trust Is All You Need reported by User:Greyshark09 (Result: both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1st revert: 18:34, 23 October 2013
 * 2nd revert: 18:37, 23 October 2013
 * 3rd revert: 18:39, 23 October 2013
 * 4th revert: 18:45, 23 October 2013
 * Comments
 * A part of user:Trust Is All You Need's disruptive activity on Corrective Revolution related pages, which have already caused an administrative edit-block of the page 1970 Syrian Corrective Revolution twice (see ).GreyShark (dibra) 18:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My edits are not unconstructive.. The Corrective Revolution in Egypt was a change in policy, but has sometimes been referred to as a coup against Nasserites (but more often purge)... A search on Google Books on "Corrective Revolution" "Egypt" "policy" (as in policy changes, reform) gives 592 hits, "Corrective Revolution" "Egypt" "coup" "1971" (1971 is used since when writing "Corrective Revolution" "Egypt" "coup" many sources begin to refer to the 1952 coup which brought the regime to power) gives 176 hits and "Corrective Revolution" "Egypt" "purge" gives 126 hits.. The Corrective Revolution was officially launched in response to a failed coup against Anwar Sadat, who rose to power in October 1970, in May 1971.. I'm correcting factual inaccuracy, please do a quick search. My edits on the 1970 Syrian Corrective Revolution has nothing to do with this, and the editor is rolling back my factual edits (which he agrees with) because I and Greyshark are not in agreement over where the article is to go. My edits are not unconstructive, if anyones edits are unconstructive its Greyshark who seems to be insisting on pushing false information to WP because he believes it to be true - stubbornness... To make it straight, how is these changes unconstructive (I've actually expanded and referenced the entire article, so how is it unconstructive? Compare the old version with the new one and you will understand.


 * But to make my edits even clearer, the "Corrective Revolution" was not a revolution or a protest.. The template title says "Major revolts and riots in modern Egypt".. You would have believed that someone else would have included it before if it was a riot, revolt, coup or an actual revolution, but its not.. It was officially launched as the "Corrective Movement" and the name was later changed to "Corrective Revolution" to reflect Sadat's "revolutionary" policy, see.. If you have further questions please reply, but if i'm going to be blocked, both of us should be. Thirdly, if there are any editors who are willing to solve the "crisis" at the 1970 Syrian Corrective Revolution please join. --TIAYN (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * - Two-way edit war, almost zero attempt to discuss the issue instead of reverting by both sides -> both sides blocked. Next time the block is longer. Use dispute resolution, guys. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Stiarts erid reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Original reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)

Recent reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The editor repeatedly adds superfluous poorly written details to the plot summary. He did stop last month after several warnings but has recently resumed his disruptive activities. He hasn't violated 3RR but it is clearly a case of protracted edit-warring. Betty Logan (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * - I'm not quite sure how to handle the WP:DIVA departure of this user, so I'm simply going to ignore it, and proceed as I would normally. In this case, I see significant disruptive editing. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

User:SpidErxD reported by User:Rezashah4 (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Original reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Recent reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

I Contacted the editor himself, and I tried to report him to an administrator. 

Comments:

This editor constantly puts poorly sourced and badly written content which he claims the following things on the Article Summary.

Officially, Since 2006, USA is funding Anti-Regime groups in Iran According to Russian State tv, these protests were planned and they called it a Western Media propaganda. ''Iranian Officials accused Western Media for giving 24x7 intense coverage to these protests. Some Iranian Officials called these protests were planned by CIA''

He also removes references to Neda Agha Soltan, who is a crucial part of the protests, from the summary and argues makes ridiculous arguments to his summaries that Fox News is wrong or HRW is not explicitly state that the government was responsible.

I told him to stop it, but instead, he starts debating with me over whether or not Neda (who was a symbol of the protest) was actually killed by pro government forces, or whether the protesters in other cities were even Iranian, then he accuses me of being Anti-Iranian and he threatens to have me blocked for Vandalism. His editing is disruptive, he is using the summary of the page to promote Pro-Iranian Government Conspiracy theories, and this guy clearly does not understand that Wikpedia is most certainly not the place for philosophical debates or fringe discussions. Rezashah4 (talk) 15:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Both parties have clearly broken 3RR here, but I think it's best to protect it instead of blocking. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * a/c to HumanRightsWatch, "Neda Agha was several kilometers away from protests, she was struck in a traffic jam, and there were no Basij forces when she was killed". a/c to FoxNews,CNN etc. "She was going to protest and she was killed by Basij". a/c to FoxNews,CNN "1st chemical attack in Syria was carried out by Assad", but a/c to UN report it was rebels who carried out that attack. I believe HumanRights,United Nations reports are more authentic then Corporate lies. Whenever i mention Russian,Iranian point of view Rezashah4 removed it. Why cant you make article neutral by mentioning both point of views? Why only American point of view is important? SpidErxD (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Michael0156 reported by User:Jinkinson (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Haseebv30 reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


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


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Shaikh ul Islam شیخ الاسلام"
 * 2)  "Hanafi"
 * 3)  "Shaikh ul Islam شیخ الاسلام"
 * 4)  "Shaikh ul Islam شیخ الاسلام"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri. (TW)"

Persistently adding unsourced content to article. -- S M S   Talk 15:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * - However I do fear that this fellow is poorly literate in English and s/he may not understand the reason for being blocked. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I forgot to note here that the reported user started to use the talk after this report was filed and is yet to receive a response. -- S M S   Talk 02:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Anup patra reported by User:Uncletomwood (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* See also */"
 * 2)  "/* See also */"
 * 3)  "/* See also */"
 * 1)  "/* See also */"
 * 2)  "/* See also */"
 * 1)  "/* See also */"
 * 1)  "/* See also */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Introducing deliberate factual errors. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:
 * Can you explain to me how you are not also edit warring? Both of you are doing a terrible job explaining your reverts and neither of you are discussing the issue. The reference you are providing only says that some people went to the National Academy of Direct Taxes for a three-day training course, which is not what you are writing in the article text. Open a dialog on the article talk page. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark Arsten (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Clock 12:13 reported by User:Sam Sailor (Result: Blocked)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

While "only" has made 3 reverts in Kunchacko Boban filmography and 3 reverts in Kunchacko Boban within the last 24 hours, the former article has been merged into the latter within these 24 hours, essentially making it 6 identical reverts without talk page discussion. Attempts by and myself to engage Clock 12:13 in further talks have been met with silent deletions on his own talk page. Sam Sailor Sing 14:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * note that it has become pretty obvious that Clock 12:13 is merely another sock from the Mealwaysrockz007 drawer. A case has been filed: Sockpuppet investigations/Mealwaysrockz007 -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

returned only to make the revert in Kunchacko Boban (added to diff list above). That's a clear 4th revert in the article within 24 hours. Sam Sailor Sing 08:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Only if you count the edit on 25 October at 11:28 UTC as a revert. As far as I can tell, that edit was, with minor trivial exceptions, additions to the filmography. I can see that the filmography has bounced around a bit, but it doesn't look like what Clock added had been removed before. If you can point to a diff where it was, then the edit would count as a revert, and they would have breached WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The reverts they make to the filmography table are 100% identical. I assume this is obscured by the fact that all above diffs are not identical in size. Solution: Take the filmography from and the filmography from  and compare them in a file editor and you will see that they are identical. I can copy-paste to two sandbox files so you can run Dupdet, if that makes life easier. -- Sam Sailor Sing 16:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * . Ah, thanks, I forgot about the interrelationship between the two articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Virgosky reported by User:HelenOnline (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts (all dated today 25 October 2013):
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:  

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

An administrator has protected the page but I believe that sanctions are also necessary to deter further edit warring after the page protection has expired. Helen Online  16:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion and the result at Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents. Administrator comments/page protectionVirgosky (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The ANI discussion is about a pattern of disruptive editing by Virgosky involving several articles and more than edit warring. This discussion is about a single WP:3RR violation which happened after I opened that discussion. Helen  Online  17:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * . As noted by the participants, there's been a discussion at ANI, and an administrator locked the article. I'm not going to (preemptively) block Virgosky based on Helen's fear that they will continue the war after the lock has expired.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your assistance. Virgosky (talk) 11:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami reported by User:Astynax (Result: Locked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Uncivil and disruptive behavior in an otherwise stable FA article. &bull; Astynax talk 08:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * . Article locked for five days.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Kwamikagami has, on another article, when asked "Are you going to stop edit-warring in this material until you have consensus?" responded "Of course not." This is a user currently showing an attitude problem with regard to edit warring (he has a close-to-the-line warning later on this page), and I would suggest that more direct action be considered. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Bowlhover reported by User:Baseball Bugs (Result: Blocked)
The user is edit-warring over a section in Reference desk/Humanities.

I don't want him blocked.

I just want an admin to tell him to STOP IT!

Thank you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC) ‎


 * See RDH. This user, Baseball Bugs, has persistently and blatantly violated WP:SOAP to carry on a debate on US politics that no relevance to the OP's question.  He continued adding to the debate even after it had been put under a "hat" tag.  I therefore deleted the vitriolic debate so that the OP's question can get more attention.
 * The only two editors that have expressed any objection are Baseball Bugs and User:Medeis, both of whom were participants in the debate and were therefore violating both Wikipedia and Reference Desk policy. Medeis, it should be noted, also reverted my hatting of the debate before another editor agreed with me and re-imposed the hat.
 * I've raised this issue on the talk page, inviting any non-participant in the debate to revert my deletion. Medeis replied with "There's a good consensus we don't delete remarks except for personal attacks, BLP violations, req's for medical advice (in which case a template is used), and egregious trolling, not a long-multiple user thread".  In the immediately preceding section of the talk page, this same user said about a user's questions, "I am not sure what you want to call the 'questions' on cancer closed by andy the grump. Given the OP won't stop opening them I have deleted them."  Clearly, since Medeis doesn't know what to call the questions, he/she does not know that they fulfill his own criteria for deletion, but proceeded to delete them anyways.  --Bowlhover (talk) 00:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * These shenanigans have gone on long enough. It is time for action. 94.68.228.99 (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I take it back. Please block the editor for edit-warring and leveling personal attacks on the talk page; and please block the IP just above for trolling. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Note that we now have three reverts by a single-purpose IP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/94.68.228.99 account re-deleting the section:
 * 20:57, 26 October 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-13,714)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (removed chat room BS by Buggs and company)
 * 20:53, 26 October 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-13,714)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (removed chat room BS by Buggs and company)
 * 20:51, 26 October 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-13,714)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (removed chat room BS by Buggs and company)


 * Please also note Bowlhover is quoting non-existent policy about editors not editting or opining on a thread they have participated in. Given it's his behavior that is at question here (and is now continuing through proxy) I am confused as to what the point of random diffless accusations against me from other times and places is, other than to show Bowlhover seems to think he is morally justified in edit warring.  I am not sure if anyone here can do an SPI, but it seems warranted given the IP's fortuitous sudden appearance. μηδείς (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You and Buggs request for admin action will bring scrutiny on both of you for your editing behavior as well. 94.68.228.99 (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly. We're stand-up guys. You, on the other hand, are hiding behind a brand-new IP. Which, by the way, I've reported for attempted impersonation of the user Bowlhover. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * 94.68.228.99 is a troll, not affiliated with me in any way. If the differences in writing style don't make this clear, please do a SPI.  --Bowlhover (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Checkusers won't do anything with IP's. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Now we apparently may have a banned IP user who identifies as "wickwack" who edits from Western Australia on variable IP's involved. See the edit by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/202.124.242.10:
 * 21:41, 26 October 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-13,714)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities‎ (Undid revision 578897032 by Baseball Bugs (talk)) (current)
 * and Prior discussion of him and his unsigned response about his IP address at the bottom of this thread where he edits as 203.54.115.88 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_102#Is_IP_120.145.70.130_Wickwack_again.3F


 * I think we may need a block of both IP users. μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Bugs and one of the three reported in the above jumble have been blocked by separate admins. (Bugs has since been unblocked.) The other two didn't violate 3RR and appear to have stopped reverting, so I am inclined not to block them for now. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Bugs was "blocked" for the comment "I lost you at boulangerie" by an admin who insulted him and said his comment on whether a copy of the Magna Carta was French or Latin at the ref desk was unhelpful. That is, the admin blocked bugs for not responding to his insult.  The admin who blocked bugs was reversed, admitted himself the block was personal, was told he could have an ANI case if he wanted, and has been threatened with desysoping for his abuse of privilege.  Basically, it's totally irrelevant to this case.


 * Why is there no action on IP94? The account was created solely for the purpose of reverting the matter at hand.  IP94 then vandalized Bowlhover's talk page, pretending to be Bowlhover.  Bowlhover himself has called IP94 a troll. The sole purpose of this account is to edit war by proxy.  Why has it not been blocked? μηδείς (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't block that IP because he stopped edit warring (and was never given a 3RR warning) and reverted his inappropriate comment on the talk page. If he resumes disruptive editing after being warned I'll be glad to block though. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I am sure that will be sufficient, and he is now formally warned. μηδείς (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami reported by User:Omar-toons (Result: no violation )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 1st diff
 * 2) 1st revert, putting back a version with unsourced content (after I added a 1st RS (BRILL's First Encyclopaedia of Islam))
 * 3) 2nd revert to the version with unsourced content
 * 4) 3rd revert to the unsourced version (even if I added a 2nd RS (Annales de Géographie, a French study focusing on linguistics))

Note: the same user was edit-warring a few hours ago (link)

Note(2): the same user is also warring (and removing RS) on the article Ghomara language in what seems to be a WP:OWN case

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: this doesn't look like a comment by somebody who wants to discuss. --Omar-toons (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments:


 * The source was already in the article, and as I explained, linguistic claims require linguistic sources. If Omar wants to change the article, he should justify the change when it's challenged.  (I have no idea who's right, but that's why we follow sources.)  — kwami (talk) 02:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Omar is using an "encyclopedic dictionary" from 1927, arguing that it trumps a preliminary linguistic classification from 2006, and has tagged the article as OR for citing the latter. A bit ridiculous, but he doesn't seem to get it.  — kwami (talk) 05:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Up against the line, but not over it. Please work this out, or locks and/or blocks will follow.  K rakatoa    K atie   06:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

User:DinoGrado reported by User:Thomas.W (Result:Blocked )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Sock where were you then?"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 578931893 by Socktabhaya (talk) per WP:WPC"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 578929058 by Thomas.W (talk)"
 * 4)  "Consent of one or two editors is not a valid reason. what is the policy behind your move?"
 * 5)  "Where were you hiding when the discussion was going on? - Remove the odd section per WP:WPC"
 * 6)  "Remove the  odd section per WP:WPC. No valid reason was given in the talk page."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Sri Lanka. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Sri Lanka. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

User repeatedly trying to remove all mention of human rights abuses in Sri Lanka. There has been a discussion about it on the talk page of the article, with DinoGrado failing to get a consensus supporting his removal. Which hasn't stopped him from repeatedly removing it. Thomas.W  talk to me  09:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, got it. Got your multiple additions to this report.  Got your WP:AIV filing on this same topic too.  Blocks are last resort - anyone who's working this hard to get another editor blocked should probably logout for a couple of hours and take a walk - obviously either too involved in the topic, or forgetting the overall purpose of this project temporarily.  Let the process take its course, and don't try to circumvent it - the article and the evidence will still be here  ES  &#38;L  10:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * See my reply to your comment on WP:AIV. It's not forumshopping, and I'm not "working hard to get another user blocked". I'm trying to put a stop to a clear violation of the rules, making six reverts against consensus in less than 24h. So thank you for your concern, but I don't need a rest. But maybe you do. Thomas.W   talk to me  10:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, DinoGrado has now made seven reverts, and shows no sign of stopping. So maybe my attempts to put a quick stop to him weren't such a bad idea after all. Thomas.W   talk to me  10:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong - a block for Dino is definitely in order. However, the reviewing admin will need to take the actions of all the other parties into account as well.  This isn't the first time this editor has edit-warred on this article - and oddly, they escaped a block the first time.  This time it's a slam dunk - however, there's a tag-team of editors who are enabling them to edit-war right now.  In my mind - 3 day block for Dino ... not sure yet for the enablers  ES  &#38;L  10:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There are no "enablers" nor is there a tag-team, only four different and totally unrelated users who, in total accordance with the rules (including issuing proper warnings), have reverted a repeated removal of properly sourced content (a removal that does not have the support of other editors, as can be seen on the talk page of the article...). Thomas.W   talk to me  10:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Psst...when you lack a bit of a clue, and a recommendation from an admin has been made, it's usually a good time to keep quiet and quit while you're ahead ES  &#38;L  11:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * User blocked, but I would caution against running around and acting like disputes like this are a life and death situation requiring immediate blocking. No lasting damage has been done to the project and taking a couple of minutes to calm down is often helpful in defusing situations. --GraemeL (talk) 11:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * GraemeL (talk) 11:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Epicforest reported by User:Alfietucker (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on User talk page: Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on User's IP talk page:
 * 1)
 * 1)

Comments:

It seems to me that this involves a relatively new editor, so as you can see I tried to talk to him/her directly on their user page, and also on the IP address which I guessed (correctly - as they themselves confirmed here) was the same editor. I tried to handle this tactfully, carefully explaining the various Wikipedia policies (including at their IP address here) and explaining that he/she was edit-warring by reverting without discussion. They have repeatedly ignored my advice on this, and my warnings here, here and here. They are clearly in breach of the WP:3RR policy. Alfietucker (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark Arsten (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

User:AnnaPlacebo reported by User:Daffydavid (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User is a WP:SPA which has failed to respond to any attempts at communication and has not heeded numerous warnings including from an admin. User is replacing a WP:RS with one that is either invalid (link to comment rather than actual study) or if linked to actual study, it has been refuted by numerous other studies and thus is WP:UNDO --Daffydavid (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/67.169.46.25 reported by User:immblueversion (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported: 67.169.46.25

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (22 October 2013)
 * 2)  (7 October 2013)
 * 3)  (27 September 2013)
 * 4)  (20 September 2013)
 * 5)  (15 September 2013)
 * 6)  (14 September 2013)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

As an anime- and manga-related article, all articles relating to Fairy Tail use the character name spellings present in the Kodansha USA manga translation, the primary English release. In this article, the user in question has kept changing names to those used in the anime's English dub, with one such edit ("Prince Cream") based on an unofficial name as opposed to the official one ("Duke Cream"). The user's edits only appear in one specific section, leading to inconsistencies in the article. From the dates, the edits over the past month have erratic, yet persistent. I hope to see the matter resolved soon. User:Immblueversion (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * . This anonymous user has a history of disruptive editing. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 07:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

User: reported by User: (Result: malformed)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff]
 * 2) [diff]
 * 3) [diff]
 * 4) [diff]

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

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

Comments:

Beauvy (talk) 04:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC) The above mentioned user FreeKnowledgeCreator has a 2 year history of reverting edits that relate to gender, feminism, and homosexuality. I have tried to summarize in an objective way the book "The Dialectic of Sex" and the user repeatedly reverts the entire summary back to a single two line "criticism" section, which does not appear to me to be in the spirit of an Encyclopedia. Wikipedia has a DEEP misogyny problem, as I have seen and reported this in the past, even dealing with very minor edits to pages involving women in philosophy, feminism, media, etc. It should not be tolerated.


 * The incorrectly formatted drivel above is simply a personal attack on me, made in the context of a content dispute. It should be removed as such. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This doesn't sound like an edit war situation to me. Consider dispute resolution instead of re-reporting here. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 07:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)