Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive207

User:Belchfire reported by User:216.81.94.68 (Result: No violation)

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

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

• 1st revert: [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abraham&diff=prev&oldid=537629949
• 2nd revert: [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abraham&diff=prev&oldid=537650111
• 3rd revert: [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abraham&diff=prev&oldid=537653072
• 4th revert: [diff]

Comments:
Belchfire is coming off his 4th "vacation" and has started edit warring, and even 3rr in this case as well, again. He even tried bullying a editor on their talk page with a warning, something common for belchfire to do. Blechfire has proven he has no regard to editing in good faith and its either his way or none. Please review his past time offs and do not take my word for it, his actions speak very loudly.

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. I'll leave a warning for him not to revert again. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

User:75.183.144.91 reported by - MrX (Result: 2 weeks)

Page: Bryan Fischer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 75.183.144.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 01:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

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

1. 21:00, 11 February 2013 (edit summary: "/* Views and activities */")
2. 21:06, 11 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537763254 by ClueBot NG (talk)")
3. 21:23, 11 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537764438 by Eyesnore (talk)the youtube video In question has Bryan Fischer actually saying this, on his radio show, if videos and radio broadcasts are unreliable then everything is")
4. 23:08, 11 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537768009 by Binksternet (talk)")
5. 01:44, 12 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537768009 by Binksternet (talk)")

• Diff of warning: here

The editor was blocked for almost identical disruptive editing a little more than two weeks ago. They also don't seem to be very fond of the advice that a couple of editors, including myself, have tried to provide to them. —- MrX 01:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks for violation of 3RR and for personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

User:3abos reported by Dawn Bard (talk) (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Heterophobia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 3abos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 13:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

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

1. 00:17, 12 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537789241 by Dawn Bard (talk) The references ARE reliable and do not violate. Nevertheless there is no reason to undo the changes.")
2. 00:32, 12 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537790807 by Josh3580 (talk) I do not see how opinion is placed in this article? if there is simply remove it.")
3. 00:35, 12 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537791297 by Eyesnore (talk)IF there is "opinion" in this article, remove the opinion not the whole article. We are supposed to be neutral?")
4. 00:47, 12 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537792172 by Josh3580 (talk)This does adhere.")
5. 05:56, 12 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537822793 by Insomesia (talk)Discussed with various authors and editors. Please see talk page that has link.")

• Diff of warning: here
• User had also received a "final warning" for violating NPOV on this same article [2]

Comments:

It's also worth noting that an IP showed up and made the same reversion as 3abos after 3abos made their 5th reversion [3][4] Dawn Bard (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Aboutstyes reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Real Madrid C.F. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aboutstyes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [5]
• 2nd revert: [6]
• 3rd revert: [7]
• 4th revert: [8]

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

I also informed the editor of the discussion here, but the editor simply removed the notice without commenting.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [10] This user has switched accounts several times. Previous incarnations were User:Cliptgenus, User:Enemyusuar and others. Editor arrives, makes this change and others. The edits are not usually worthy of an SPI, but if block evasion happens, I will take it up.

I have started a discussion at the project: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Image in the grounds/stadium section.

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. (Your diff about trying to resolve the issue isn't; perhaps it's a mistake. In any case, this editor doesn't seem like he wants to talk to anyone about anything.)--Bbb23 (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Griffy013 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Jose Antonio Vargas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Griffy013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [11]

• 02:51, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537946830 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) (Because no specific reason given for revert of cited material)")
• 02:56, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "(Reverted deletion of cited entry without explaination)")
• 03:01, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537981124 by Bbb23 (talk) (more specificity is needed - there are many sources only delete information that is improperly sourced not a wholesale deletion ))")
• 03:09, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537981780 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) (your editing to make the language more neutral is welcomed - i did not write this - but there are many cited items in this entry)")
• 03:15, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537982575 by Bbb23 (talk) (be specific and we can talk about it - you are repeatedly deleting a large portion of materials with multiple citations)")
• 03:19, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537983007 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) (again, this appears to be cited - is there is an issue with language - change to neutral language)")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [13]

The user keeps reverting. This is a sensitive WP:BLP article and there are serious problems with the material that was initially added by an IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

He is reverting a large amount of cited information from multiple sources without specific reason or a line item edit. Has not responded on talk page.--griffy013 (talk) 10:30, 13 February 2013 (EST)

Despite taking the time to repeatedly remove my re-edits no one will talk to me on the talk page of the page in question. It is removal without discussion.--griffy013 (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2013 (EST)

I attempted both to talk to you and to warn you on your talk page, as the diff shows. Also, RedPen tried to explain to you the BLP problems inherent in the material. However, despite three editors reverting you, you continued to insist. I might add that you reverted twice more since I posted the list of reverts above. I'm going off-wiki now, so I will have no more comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

My personal talk page is not the place for a discussion of the page. It does not help future editors at all. See the Vargas talk page. My continued efforts at re-editing smaller chunks of the material you originally removed have been again removed without discussion - the revert is of different, re-edited material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Griffy013 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

This incident involved so many reverts that it ought not be allowed to close as "stale". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result:Article is full-protected)

Page: Sam & Cat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [14]
• 2nd revert: [15]
• 3rd revert: [16]
• 4th revert: [17]
• 5th revert: [18]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20]

Comments:
Edit warring about inclusion of primary sourced information.

• Both parties are edit warring. Rather than block anybody over something this trivial, I full-protected the article. Please take it to the article talk page. --Orlady (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Kpopnz reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: Indeffed as sock puppet)

Page: File:Sam & Cat Title Screen.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kpopnz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [21]
• 2nd revert: [22]
• 3rd revert: [23]
• 4th revert: [24]

After notification of this discussion

• 5th revert: [25]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27], [28] and [29]

Comments: Uploading show logo images from fan-sites and replacing an official image from the site of the show creator. No communications

No longer relevant as user has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Roscelese reported by User:67.185.8.191 (Result: Semi-protected)

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

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

• 1st revert: [30]
• 2nd revert: [31]
• 3rd revert: [32]
• 4th revert: [33]
• 5th revert: [34]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]

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

Comments:
Yes I know the 4th revert is slightly more than 24 hours old, but the full pattern goes back several days and there is an obvious intent to preven any/all changes from his preferred version of the page.

Page protected by User:Airplaneman.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Respectfully, having recently encountered Roscelese at a catholicism based article, and knowing how hard they work to protect the content of these works, this looks more like the IP trying to get their way by removing longstanding text from the work and then blaming Roscelese for edit warring. The only reichstag climber here is the IP user. Good call in protecting the work. Fish^Barking? 19:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Sonofbengal reported by Freemesm (talk) (Result: Warned)

Page: 2013 Shahbag Protest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 06:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

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

1. 21:22, 12 February 2013 (edit summary: "")
2. 21:47, 12 February 2013 (edit summary: "Organized more logically. Removing excess irrelevant/unrelated materials and void references. Edited for neutrality of the article.")
3. 14:21, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 538047646 by Sabih omar (talk)")
4. 14:24, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 538047456 by 103.9.114.246 (talk)")
5. 14:33, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 538049158 by 103.9.114.246 (talk) don't edit further until consensus is reached in the talkp page")

• Diff of warning: [here

Comments:
This user is trying to insert info from This Blog which is WP:Copyrightvio, remove a large part of sourced material Which is WP:Verifiability vio and engage in edit warring with other newbie editors. As a result this 2013 Shahbag Protest article become protected. I think he will start the edit war again just after removal of protection. This account start editing from yesterday and from the beginning try to vandalize the article. Even he vandalize his own talk page [36] [37] [38] [] [], where few users warn him. I think he will be blocked. Actually this is my first 3RR reporting by using this tool, If done anything wrong, please help me to report in write way. Thank you--Freemesm (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Warned. The only thing you neglected to do, Freemesm, was to notify the editor of this discussion. I've done that and I've also warned the user. However, blocking the user at this point would be punitive as they can't continue to disrupt the article while it's locked. However, once the lock expires, if they continue to edit disruptively and I see it, I will block them.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Kits1972 reported by User:UseTheCommandLine (Result: Indeffed)

Page: Catherine of Alexandria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kits1972 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [39]
• 2nd revert: [40]
• 3rd revert: [41]
• 4th revert: [42]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

Additional issues of WP:COMPETENT are noted on the talk page

I was notified of this dispute through my involvement at WP:DRN, and have no involvement with the article myself. Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]

• Blocked indefinitely. The editor is either completely incompetent or trolling.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Nikpapag reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: Warned)

Page: Nook Simple Touch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nikpapag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [45]

• 1st revert: [46]
• 2nd revert: [47]
• 3rd revert: [48]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Attempts at discussion have been made at Talk:Nook Simple Touch and User talk:Nikpapag#Concerning your edits at Nook Simple Touch

Comments:
Not a 3RR report, but a general edit warring report. There are issues with the edit that I've explained in edit summaries and on the talk page, but Nikpapag has demonstrated that he has no intention of discussing it, but chooses to edit war without explanation, not even bothering to use an edit summary in the last two diff, and there's no indication that the edit warring will cease. - SudoGhost 02:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not taking any action on this because I'm about to go off-wiki, so I'll leave it for another admin. I will note, though, that Nikpapag does not talk. Hasn't talked on an article talk page since 2010 and then only a few times. Doesn't do user talk, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Result: Warned. If the editor continues to revert with no discussion, they may be blocked without further notice. EdJohnston (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

3RR violation on Jigai (Result: Semi)

• Page: Jigai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

An IP editor openly using different accounts has reverted me three times in the last few hours.[50][51][52][53][54][55] Can I get some help in dealing with this user? (They are also under investigation for sockpuppetry/block-evasion.) elvenscout742 (talk) 11:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected ten days. It does not look good to have an edit war on an article where an AfD is pending, especially when one side of the dispute is an IP-hopper and is not participating in the AfD. The entire article could be a factual error, and perhaps there is no special female way to commit suicide in the Japanese tradition. See the IP's participation at Talk:Jigai#Dubious. EdJohnston (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Kontoreg reported by User:ZarlanTheGreen (Result: No action)

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

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kendo&diff=538379523&oldid=534786532 Also, on his user page (and this somewhat pre-dates the above attempts): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kontoreg&diff=538200582&oldid=535784166

Comments:

This is the first time I have reported an edit war, so I am not sure if I've done this right. The bits about reverts, are rather confusing, as this isn't a case of 3RR, as far as I know. Please excuse me, for any clumsiness or errors, due to ignorance.

There was some content added by Kontoreg, on Kendo, which was removed/modified by Ffbond. Kontoreg then re-added it straight away. Ffbond then reverted this for it giving undue weight to an unnotable issue. (admittedly, Ffbond has some blame here too. Also, please not that these are not all exact reverts. There is some slight modifications here and there)
All the while Kontoreg also added some information on katas, which was modified to be a bit more coherent.
...all of which was then instantly re-added by Kontoreg.

Having seen all this, I felt I needed to say something. Thus I pointed out to Kontoreg, that such behaviour is wrong, and why it is so. I have myself been involved in a few editing disputes, and even a Dispute resolution noticeboard (which ended up quite well, I must say). All of that, with some blame being on my own behaviour, until I've learned the policies and guidelines (the wisdom of which, I generally instantly understood and accepted, once I understood the policy/guideline), so I didn't wish to be too harsh, but I felt Kontoreg needed to be informed of how things are supposed to be done, and why the things that he/she was doing was wrong.
I pointed out that these things have to be discussed, not just reverted back and forth. This was swiftly followed by Ffbond making a reply there, saying he/she would discuss the matter in the talk page, which Ffbond started straight away, as promised. This discussion was, once Kontoreg entered them, mostly derailed into a discussion of pointless and confused semantics (and I'm not saying that semantics are pointless).

Sadly Kontoreg made an edit, concerning an issue being discussed, during the discussion, which I instantly reverted, pointing out that it was inappropriate.
This incident aside, we were quickly able to form consensus. Kontoreg didn't agree, but then consensus doesn't require all to agree. Ffbond was good enough to clean up the article, in accordance with the consensus.

Sadly this was then reverted by Kontoreg, in complete disregard of the consensus. I reverted this, pointing out that Kontoreg's edits were going against wikipedia policy and guidelines, but Kontoreg simply re-reverted it. Following this, I pointed out, in the talk page (and also in Kontoreg's user talk page, just to be sure), that the issues have been discussed and consensus formed, and that these edits were against policy and guidelines. I informed Kontoreg that he/she needed to undo the edits, or I would report this as edit warring.

Kontoreg made some more additions to the talk page, and later proceeded to make a few edits on the main article. Edits that, in no way, were an undo of anything. This I took as a sign of refusing, but realising that not much time had gone by, I decided to give him/her some more time. Still, I tried to convince Kontoreg, appealing to the values of Kendo (which seemed appropriate, given Kontoreg's apparent passion for the subject) ...and pointing out that I had written a edit warring report ready to post.

Kontoreg did not respond in the manner I hoped, but rather said that he had made a Dispute resolution noticeboard request. Dispute resolution noticeboard are, as far as I've understood, about better being able to establish consensus and then apply that. However, discussion has already occurred and finished, with consensus having been formed. You need to be able to respect the decisions reached by it. Kontoreg has clearly shown utter disregard for such things. Kontoreg does not seem to be able to accept the consensus, not because of any lack of discussion, but rather simply due to the fact that the consensus wasn't to his/her liking. (and I say this despite trying to assume good faith)
This I pointed out in the talk page, as well as pointing out that the DRN request had been done quite badly (as well as the informing of other editors). I also pointed out the fact that, for all the assumption of good faith, and keeping Hanlon's Razor firmly in mind, I could not really consider this an honest attempt to reach consensus, but rather an attempt to try to get through Kontoreg's own opinion. I am reminded of a child asking for something from it's parent, and when told no, rather than accepting that their request has been denied, tries asking the other parent, to see if he/she will say yes.
Thus I saw the DRN request as nothing more than a further disruptive act. Whether it was intentionally so, is irrelevant. Essentially, whether intentional or not, I see it as, in effect, gaming the system.

The DRN request was closed, as it was badly done, the involved editors weren't properly informed (or even mentioned in the request) ...and quite importantly, Kontoreg pointed out in the DRN request, that he/she was going on vacation the day after making the request (until the 26:th), meaning that no real discussion could happen for quite a while.
This would also mean forcing Kontoreg's version of the article (which goes against consensus) to stay on, for quite some more time, meaning even more disruption, intentional or not.

I do not see this as something to be dealt with in a DRN, or where a DRN would help. I do, however, see it as a clear case of edit warring. Thus I make this report.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 12:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure how I am supposed to inform Kontoreg. I have done so here (and also on the Kendo talk page). Please do tell me if it's wrong, and how it should be done, if that is so. On the bright side, there's apparently no great hurry to get it right, given that Kontoreg is apparently on holiday.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Result: No action. If Kontoreg is on vacation until Feb. 26, then the edit war is over for the moment. If this starts up again, make a new report and link to this one. Note that you did not provide the four diffs that are normally required for a 3RR report. EdJohnston (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Reason.upholder reported by Freemesm (talk) (Result: Declined)

Page: 2013 Shahbag Protest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Reason.upholder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 12:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

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

1. 14:04, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "Added details and organization, corrected for neutrality")
2. 14:41, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 538050137 by 103.9.114.246 (talk) you people are giving pro-government slant to the article destrying its neutrality.... come to the talk page... lets discuss")
3. 14:53, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 538051762 by 103.9.114.246 (talk) theres no point made by shouting vandalism.... provide some non-blog/authentic references... come to talk page lets discuss")
4. 15:02, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 538052402 by Arctic Kangaroo (talk) until otherwise established in the talk page let it have a neutral slant")
5. 15:35, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "No claim outside references. Check them. I am discussing the matter in the talk page.")

• Diff of warning: here

—Freemesm (talk) 12:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57] [58]

Comments:
This guy was edit warring on 2013 Shahbag Protest and made it protected. He removed a large number of sourced content and add some something from copying this blog. He don't have any basic idea of editing on wikipedia, thats why he vandalize that article's talk page. I am afraid after removal of protection from that article, he will start edit war again. Moreover I am in doubt that User:Sonofbengal who was reported earlier his sock. I am not quite sure as my experience in reporting sockpuppet is negligible, but both of them start the edit war in similar way. So I am requesting to take action on this guy. Thank you.--Freemesm (talk) 12:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Declined. Has not edited the article since the lock expired.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

User:84.100.58.203 reported by Funandtrvl (talk) (Result: Declined)

Page: List of fast food restaurant chains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 84.100.58.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 22:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: [59]

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

1. 21:13, 14 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 538252657 by Funandtrvl (talk)")
2. 21:17, 14 February 2013 (edit summary: "/* France */")
3. 21:18, 14 February 2013 (edit summary: "/* France */")
4. 14:40, 15 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 538311224 by Funandtrvl (talk)")
5. 19:58, 15 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 538424923 by Funandtrvl (talk)")

• Diff of warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [60]

—Funandtrvl (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Declined. The first three diffs you list above constitute one revert as they are consecutive. Therefore, the IP has not violated 3RR, although there is edit-warring, but by both of you. You also failed to notify them of this report, which you are required to do. I'm not going to bother because I'm declining the report. I suggest you make sure that the IP knows that you want to discuss their edits. You started a topic on the article talk page, which is to your credit, but the IP may not be aware of it. So, leave a note on their talk page about the topic and invite them to comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Eaglestorm reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: 48 hours)

Page: How I Met Your Mother (season 8) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 15:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:

• First version: 00:56, 2 February 2013 (edit summary: "rvt back to previous version; you want to start again?")
• Subsequent version: 14:57, 6 February 2013 (edit summary: "")

Reversions:

• 1st revert: 14:57, 6 February 2013 (edit summary: "")
• 2nd revert: 13:41, 9 February 2013 (edit summary: "")
• 3rd revert: 09:02, 10 February 2013 (edit summary: "/* Episodes */ adjusting; argument about not teasing is nonsense. Thought of previous revision is still too close to original.")
• 4th revert: 14:11, 10 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537520168 by AussieLegend (talk) thought behind revision about identity too close to original. nothing more than ganging up on behalf of troll editor")
• 5th revert: 12:38, 12 February 2013 (edit summary: "/* Episodes */ rvt edit by SPA editor")

Diffs of edit warring warnings: [61][62]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [63]

Diffs of attempts to resolve dispute on user's talk page: [64][65][66]

Comments:
Back on 22 January, an IP made a minor, and reasonable, change to an episode summary at How I Met Your Mother (season 8), replacing vague information with a specific point about the episode plot.[67] This was later reverted by another IP, who claimed it was a spoiler.[68] As removal was contrary to WP:SPOILER, it was reverted.[69] On 2 February, Eaglestorm reverted the change without explanation.[70] That edit was reverted, with the editor stating quite correctly in his edit summary, "Summaries are supposed to summarize, not tease". Eaglestorm's next visit was 9 February,[71] and since then has been edit-warring over the content. Multiple attempts have been made on his talk page to engage him in discussion,[72][73][74] but these have proven fruitless. I initiated a discussion on the article's talk page,[75] and invited Eaglestorm to the discussion,[76] to no avail. After I initiated the talk page discussion, an IP posted to my talk page, explaining that Eaglestorm will not engage in discussion.[77] This claim seems well supported by Eaglestorm's talk page history. There are numerous cases where editors have attempted to engage him,[78][79] but he refuses, instead simply deleting requests with inappropriate edit summaries,[80][81][82][83] calling editors trolls, socks and SPAs. Even my attempts to engage him were deleted as "nothing more than prodding at the behest of some SPA editor",[84] and the edit-warring warning was reverted as "unjustified warning at the behest of SPA".[85] Eaglestorm has now posted at my talk page,[86] but still has not engaged in any discussion over his contentious edits, and his 5th revert above clearly indicates that he intends to continue his edit-warring. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Just noting that after Eaglestorm's peculiar (dare I say "paranoid") post on my talk page,[87], his next edit was to delete the notification of this discussion on his talk page as "harrassment".[88] EdJohnston has since posted on Eaglestorm's talk page requesting response to this complaint.[89] However, Eaglestorm has not edited at all in the 32 hours since he last deleted content from his talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Eaglestorm has now edited again, deleting EdJohnston's request with the edit summary, "will not dignify response".[90] --AussieLegend (✉) 06:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Pass456 reported by User:MRSC (Result: Semi-protected; warned)

Page: Middlesex (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pass456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [91]
• 2nd revert: [92]
• 3rd revert: [93]
• 4th revert: [94]
• 5th revert: [95]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [96]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [97]

Comments:
Edits are made from several IPs. Edit histories and summaries are clearly the same person.

Page protected.

Warned. I've semi-protected the article for one week. I've warned the named account. I've reverted the article to the version before the edit-war and the abuse of multiple accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Having just read the above information through, I draw your attention to the following edit made on User:MRSC subsequent to the actions described above to resolve the issue (if I have my time-diffs worked out): here. I have temporarily blocked the anon user for 1 day and I am happy for this to be reverted if any subsequent action to determine whether an attempt to evade the warning given to User:Pass456 has occurred.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Martinvl reported by User:212.183.140.33 (Result: Reporter (IP) blocked; article semi-protected)

Page: International System of Units (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Martinvl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [98]

• 1st revert: [99]
• 2nd revert: [100]
• 3rd revert: [101]
• 4th revert: [102]

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

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

Comments:

Egregious and aggravated edit warring

The 4th edit is outside of the 24h period, but is clearly deliberate and a transparent attempt to game the system for the following reasons:

• Martinvl had first to organise semi-protection for this page and for Metric system to try to ensure that his POV could not be altered - see these requsts: [105]
• Martinvl has been warring in this and the Metric system article for some days now, see this warning from an administrator: [106] and the diffs below.

Diffs for the Metric system article which he also got semi-protected first:

• 1st revert: [107]
• 2nd revert: [108]
• 3rd revert: [109] (note the edit summary)
• 4th revert: [110] (note the edit summary)

• Martinvl has recently had gaming charges related to these articles brought against him on WP:ANI at: [111]
• Martinvl freely issues edit-warring warnings himself, so is well aware that such practices are not acceptable in a collaborative environment such as Wikipedia.

The aggrevating circumstances, and the fact that he clearly engineered semi-protection for these articles to assist his mission demonstrate, beyond doubt, that these are clearly pre-meditated and egregious attempts to force a POV by relentless edit-warring and bad-faith accusation-throwing and failure to engage in civilised discussion. 212.183.140.33 (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me be blunt about it, I believe that the complainant is a sockpuppet of the banned User:DeFacto who has recently change ISP so that he hops IP address every time that he logs on and that he is out to cause trouble. At the moment [an SPI for another] of his alleged sockpuppers [[User:Bill le Conquérant] is awaiting closure. In this edit he wrote "Also, do you have a source showing what the socio-economic mix of Asda customers is, and how that compares with the UK population in general? (this is my first contribution to this debate)" (My emphasis). Why would he write something like this? If one looks at this sequence of threads:

• Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom/Archive 4#Proposed removal of the whole Asda story
• Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom/Archive 2#ASDA
• Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom/Archive 3#Asda report - 12 October update
• Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom/Archive 3#MedCab mediation offer
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 107#Using reports of market research surveys
• Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/Archive 34#Polls and surveys

one will see that an enormous amount was written about Asda. I think that the complainant knows more about Asda than he lets on, I think that his statement "this is my first contribution to this debate" is proof that he was a major contributor to the Asda argument and that he is DeFacto. That being the case, I was reverting work done by a sockpuppet of a banned user, something which is permissable. Furthermore, I got the locks on the articles in question as a means of getting him off my back and off Wikipedia's back. Martinvl (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

That discussion is clearly a response to your reply to this contribution from another editor, in which a BBC article is cited, an article which refers to the Asda survey and which you commented upon yourself in that thread! To claim that there was some other rationale, seated in some historical dispute is clearly a crazy notion. You are disrupting Wikipedia and will clearly stop at nothing to defend your own, transparently POV-motivated actions. Did you revert the two articles mentioned here, contrary to the edit-war prevention conventions and for your own purposes? You clearly did. Throwing around unsubstantiated accusations, with no regard for the harm they might do to other, innocent editors, is not a dignified way to try to defend yourself, now please stop it. And looking back at the rest of that thread, his "" remark was clearly to distinguish himself from the other 212.183 editor involved in the same thread. Martinvl, please avoid starting your own conspiracy theories. 212.183.140.33 (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Not sure it's quite 4 reverts - I only see two matching edits. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• Page protected. Semi-protected by User:Materialscientist for 3 days.
• Blocked. Reporter (212.183.140.33) blocked for one month for sock puppetry (confirmed puppet of User:ROBERT TAGGART). As for the IPs who may be DeFacto, the SPI was inconclusive, although I'm inclined to believe they are. Thus, either further semi-protection or a range block may ultimately be necessary.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

BB. That tag was put there on 1 June 2010‎. The chances of this IP being Taggart is pretty slim. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

DS, very hard to sort out. The IP is supposedly static (I don't know how accurate Geolocate's labels of static and dynamic are). Also, this particular IP was not listed in the latest DeFacto SPI. If they are static, then I have to go with the confirmed SPI from 2010. If they are actually dymamic, then I would be inclined to believe they are a sock of DeFacto. Either way, they should be blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Well it is not static as it is different every time he logs in :o) I use the same ISP, am I a sock of Defacto as well? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want me to block you, I can. :-) I've raised the technical issues at the DeFacto SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Nomoskedasticity reported by Yworo (talk) (Result: No action)

Page: Jose Antonio Vargas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 07:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

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

1. 05:09, 17 February 2013 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 70.44.58.168 (talk) to last version by Bbb23")
2. 05:31, 17 February 2013 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 538669028 by Nomoskedasticity: pls get consensus for these changes, particularly in light of earlier discussions. (TW)")
3. 06:56, 17 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 538671586 by Yworo (talk) BLP violation -- see WP:BLPN")
4. 07:05, 17 February 2013 (edit summary: "WP:BLP violation")

Note: the claim by Nomoskedasticity that his reverts are exempt under WP:BLP are false, as it is he who is inserting false information.

—Yworo (talk) 07:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Bad-faith report, failing to mention the fact that I started a discussion at WP:BLPN and have explicitly invoked a BLP exemption to 3RR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing "false" insofar as it is rooted in Vargas's statement "I am an American". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not an independent, third party reliable source. We err on the side of caution by omitting controversial or disputed claims, not by including them. "When in doubt, leave it out". Please provide a reliable source. Yworo (talk) 07:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The subject's own article published in the NYTimes Magazine is an excellent source for the subject's own self-identification regarding ethnicity. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Again "American" is not an ethnicity, it's a nationality, and people don't get to choose their nationality. Therefore a third-party reliable sources is required to establish it, not a claim by the subject, who doesn't have that power. Yworo (talk) 07:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

"Filipino-American", however, is an ethnicity. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

And by insisting on that, you prove yourself not to be following WP:OPENPARA. His specific ethnicity is not important to his notability. It's his citizenship of one county while residing in another. If he were an ethnic Chinese (or Italian, or Jewish) Philippine citizen in the US without resident status, he'd be just as notable. He was born in the Philippines, he's a Philippine national. It's his natal nation. Yworo (talk) 07:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The core issue here, the basis for claiming a BLP exemption to 3RR, was given at BLPN: "Again, usually the edit in question comes from a particular POV, designed to discredit Vargas's claim to be an American and to reinforce his status as an "alien". As such, the edit is a BLP violation." It is therefore disturbing that Yworo subsequently repeated his own edit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no interest in discrediting anyone. I am simply trying be accurate, in a clear and concise way that does not mislead our readers and does not include a claim which has no supporting citations, namely the implication of American citizenship or legal resident status. The wording that states his nationality and separately states his country of residence is simply the most accurate. Yworo (talk) 07:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

For the record (fwiw), I have no intention of reverting again. Nomo's already hit four reverts, and I'm not the only editor he has reverted. (added) He has stated that he intends on continuing to revert on (imo false) BLP grounds. That's why I reported him, because of his stated intent to continue reverting. Yworo (talk) 07:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Note. Without knowing that a report had already been filed, I commented on the edit-warring issue at WP:BLPN. As I stated there, I am WP:INVOLVED and cannot act administratively on this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The article needs long-term semi-protection. Beyond that: what appears to have happened today is that Yworo (whom I have had disagreements with before) has my talk-page on his watchlist and saw that an IP editor had posted there today about Vargas; he then repeated the IP's edit, knowing that I would get to the limit of 3RR before he did. Yworo has not edited the Vargas article before today; I see no other way to account for his interest in it -- so there is also a bit of WP:HOUND here. In any event, the claim of a BLP exemption was made in perfectly good faith. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

You have been wrong about ethnicity issues before. That's why it caught my attention. There's no "hounding" involved in good faith efforts to correct WP:BLP issues. Cheers, it's my bedtime. Hope you come up with some better arguments. Yworo (talk) 08:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This article has been stable for a long time with the opening "Jose Antonio Vargas (born February 3, 1981) is a Filipino American journalist..." If it is to be changed, it should happen via discussion and consensus, not via Yworo jumping on the back of an IP edit, repeating it 3 times including once after I opened a BLPN discussion indicating the nature of the BLP violation involved. Yworo's post immediately above confirms my notion of how he got here; even the timing (3rr report filed a mere 2 minutes after my last article edit -- surely begun before that last edit) suggests a path motivated by a desire to stir things up. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:LONGTIME is not a valid argument. Yworo (talk) 07:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, sure -- but WP:CONSENSUS is. Anyway we're not discussing deleting the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I propose that both Nomoskedasticity and Yworo stop editing the article until this matter is resolved in a manner other than edit-warring. Meanwhile I don't see an offence by Nomoskedasticity that couldn't be charged as much against Yworo, so this case should be dismissed. This board is not a place to gain support in content disputes. Opinions of uninvolved persons would be welcome at WP:BLP#Jose Antonio Vargas as the question is somewhat interesting. Zero^talk 13:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Yworo appears to have rejected your proposal [112]. I've requested semi-protection -- that would help matters, in my view. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

We are going to stir up the least amount of surprise by labeling him with a term that has understandable applicability. Readers from different positions on the spectrum of opinion on this and related topics may have differing reactions to this term being applied to this individual—ranging from support to rejection. But we need to be concerned with representing the subject of the biography. We don't accomplish that by severing the two parts of the term (Filipino-American) into its components. "Filipino-American" is the term to describe Vargas. Is he "Filipino"? Yes and no. Is he "American"? Yes and no. We should be taking the least controversial stand on the question at hand. I think the Principle of least astonishment should be our main concern. Bus stop (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Result: No action. The dispute involves possibly valid BLP claims, which may exempt some of the reverts from the 3RR rule. Neither party has reverted since 17 February. It would be sensible for both editors to avoid the article for a little while, until such time as a clear consensus is reached at BLPN or on the talk page. The comment above by User:Bus stop might offer a way forward. EdJohnston (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Belchfire reported by - MrX (Result: Blocked)

Page: The Bible and homosexuality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 05:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

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

1. 04:27, 17 February 2013 (edit summary: "/* Does the Bible condemn homosexuality? */ Non-encyclopedic section removed per Talk discussion.")
2. 05:20, 17 February 2013 (edit summary: "/* Leviticus 18 and 20 */ (edited with ProveIt) Ch to NIV, in conformity with the rest of the article. Added cites for verses, slightly better formatting for readability.")
3. 05:22, 17 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 538669890 by MrX (talk) Fails verification, reverted per WP:V. What version is this from? Figure that out and provide links before reverting.")
4. 18:23, 17 February 2013 (edit summary: "/* Other Epistles */ The Greek words are useful to connect the quotes to the surrounding prose, but we can't simply omit partions of a direct quote and substitute foreign words in their place.")
5. 22:13, 17 February 2013 (edit summary: "/* References to Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible */ This word is in the source and is necessary, as omitting it changes the meaning of the sentence.")
6. 04:03, 18 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 538790914 by MrX (talk) Rm off-topic content. Paul's credibility is not relevant here and sourcing doesn't change that. Perhaps this should be added to Paul of Tarsus.")

• Diff of warning: here

Many editors, including myself, have tried to reason with this editor to convince him to work collaboratively to build articles instead of edit warring. He routinely accuses others of edit warring and POV pushing, but then exhibits those very same behaviors himself. Belchfire's talk page is a testament to not playing well with others in the sandbox. After four blocks, most recently about five weeks ago, he still doesn't seem to accept that he needs to take a measured, collegial approach to his editing. He was also warned about edit warring a week ago by User:Mark Arsten. Obviously this warning had no enduring impact.

I'm not sure what the solution is. Timeouts aren't having the desired effect. Recidivism is evident within days of him returning to editing after each time he has been blocked. Nevertheless, I am requesting for an admin to review Belchfire's history, and the recent tendentious editing, and take some sort of action that will have a lasting effect for the sake of the project.

This is really getting old.

Thank you. - MrX 05:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It might also help the project if civil POV-pushers like MrX would stop trying to game the system as a tool to silence perceived opposition. This report is, in a word, bogus. There are, in fact, just two reverts to be found on MrX's artificially trumped-up list (#3 and #6). The rest are, quite obviously, additions and improvements to the article. Diff #1 was a removal made pursuant to this Talk discussion, wherein a consensus of editors agreed that the section was prolematic. (Important to note: Roscelese's objection was posted after the edit.) #4 and #5 are additions, not reverts. There is nothing "tendentious" here, other than the EW report itself. ► Belchfire-TALK 05:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Support 1 month block. Belchfire, you were warned twice, once at 15:34, 14 February and a second time at 04:15, 18 February. As I've repeatedly said, your use of this account appears to be primarily for the purpose of edit warring and disruption. Perhaps you should consider starting a new article and working on that for a while instead of obsessing about homosexuality. Viriditas (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Note. I don't believe I can act here. I argee that #4 is not a revert. #5 is on the fence; it's the addition of a word but it changes the meaning of another editor's content. The others are reverts per policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Additional clarifying information corresponding to the diffs above.

1. Removed an entire section: "Does the Bible condemn homosexuality?" which was added in this edit by Hongsy.
2. Changed two existing Leviticus 18 and 20 quotations from from King James Version to the New International Version.
3. Removed: "Still others have argued that Paul's writings must be considered fallible, due in part to the positions (or lack thereof) that he takes on slavery and women." and 5 sources, added by me here.
4. Re-added the phrases "those practicing homosexuality" and "men who have sex with men" which I previously removed in this edit
5. Re-added the word "unambiguously" which Roscelese had removed in her previous edit. (Also, what happened to the IBAN that was supposed to keep Belchfire away from Roscelese? Update:Yes, there is an IBAN and he was notified.)
6. Removed: "Others interpreters have argued that Paul's writings must be considered fallible, due in part to his views about slavery and women." and 5 references.

- MrX 17:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, MrX, for taking so much trouble to illuminate more of the history. Based on the above, I now believe that #4 and #5 both constitute reverts. In addition, I agree that Belchfire has violated the interaction ban ("edit in contradiction with Roscelese on any page"), which is indefinite and has apparently not been lifted.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one month Mark Arsten (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Susanknowledgeguru reported by User:Tarage (Result: Locked)

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

---

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

Previous version reverted to: [113]

• 1st revert: [114]
• 2nd revert: [115]
• 3rd revert: [116]
• 4th revert: [117]
• 5th revert: [118]
• 6th revert: [119]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [120] I was unable to diff because this is the first post in the user's talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [121]

Comments:

I started by removing a section on the Asymmetrical Warfare page that had been inserted by an anonymous editor. The anonymous editor then proceeded to revert the removal and subsequent removals by myself and User:Rjensen. I decided to back off hoping they would lose interest and four days later removed the section again. A second anonymous editor then reinserted the section. After reverting back and forth, the user registered the name User:Susanknowledgeguru and continued to edit war. We both went to the discussion page for the article and I tried to explain that the section was not relevant to the article and three separate users had reverted their edits, but the user refused to listen, and admitted to also being the first anonymous editor by stating that they were the who inserted it in the first place. They reverted again, there by totaling 6 revisions over the span of 8 days. I've run out of patience trying to explain to this user that without consensus, they cannot simply continue reverting edits by multiple editors. Since they refuse to listen, I've come here for help. Thank you. --Tarage (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

User Tarage seems to think that he has the authority to determine what stays and what goes in an article. I was the user who added the section in question to this article in the first place. I did so without being logged in and therefore it showed my IP instead of a username. When Tarage made the accusation that I was engaging in an edit war (even though Tarage was deleting my section multiple times without a valid explanation), I registered for the username that I have. I initially attributed the deletions that he was doing to vandalism and I added a section to the talk page to work any issues out. Instead of attempting to work any issues out, Tarage attempted to intimidate and threaten me as is documented on the talk page. I should point out that the deletion that has been made to this article since I edited it is 3 different users deleting the section I wrote. Note that 2 people besides myself have made an edit to this section(one added a tag, one undid the deletion of this section). The consensus regarding the section being in the article is indeed 50/50. Since no one has made a strong case for why this section does not belong, it does not make sense why it should be deleted. I should not be accused of engaging in an edit war, when the users deleting sections from this article are by far more provocative than I have been. For crying out loud, I was the one who added a section to the talk page. I clearly attempted to diffuse this situation from the beginning, however, several users, especially Tarage think that they have the right to bully other users around. Susanknowledgeguru (talk) 06:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I am honestly confused by the above statement. Susan admits that they were both anonymous IPs, yet claims consensus is 50/50 despite being the only editor who believe the section should be included. I don't quite understand how they can then claim that multiple editors support the section when they all were Susan. The section has been deleted or otherwise contested by four users now. This doesn't get any more clear cut. --Tarage (talk) 06:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It is quite clear which of the anonymous IPs was mine. Since I edited the article in the first place as the anonymous user, just look at the edit history to see which IP belongs to me. As for other users both adding and deleting content, I cannot speak for them as they are not me. Until Tarage will stop making groundless accusations that I am more than one user, I am not going to waste my time defending myself as there is no reason to. Tarage needs to go review the edit history again. It is clear that 2 other users besides myself have made edits that would be in support of the section that I created. One user named Dale Arnett added a main tag and an anonymous user undid a deletion by Tarage. That make three who have made edits in support of the section that I created. Tarage, Rjensen and one anonymous user have deleted the section I created. Note that one of the anonymous users who deleted the section said that it was being deleted due to an ongoing edit war. That in and of itself is not a reason to delete anything. As I said, that means that a 50/50 consensus exists on whether the section I created belongs in the article. I don't see what is unclear about that. The facts speak for themselves. Susanknowledgeguru (talk) 07:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. Article fully protected by User:Toddst1. Susan, once the lock expires I suggest you move more slowly and restrict your edits to the talk page. First, you are new and you are not abiding by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. When an editor reverts your content, your next course of action is to go to the article talk page and discuss it (WP:BRD). You should not reinsert the material without a clear WP:CONSENSUS for doing so (50-50 is not a consensus). The burden is on you. Also, don't use terms like vandalism when they don't apply; such comments are often construed as personal attacks. Finally, I'm not persuaded that the second IP (User:139.182.130.61) is not you.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Toddst1, first of all, I will make no further edits to the article. If whether the section belongs or not, I will let others decide. I realize that I should not have repeatedly undid the deletions that several users did. It is important to note, however, that I was the one who added a section in the talk page for the section in question. Tarage or any of the users that delete my section without giving a valid explanation, never went to the talk page first. These users deleting the section created were also engaged in the same type of behavior as I was. That being said, I was the one that took steps to diffuse the situation. I am a new Wikipedia user and I am still trying to understand all of Wikipedia's policies. Instead of helping me, all I have received from Tarage is personal attacks. Lastly, Tarage has made several accusations about me using multiple IPs. It seems you are agreeing with him on that. I am upset about this accusation, and if I continue to run into this type of character assassination, I will plan on leaving Wikipedia for good. I will state one last time what I did. I was the one who added the section in question to the article, using an anonymous IP. Nothing wrong with that. I later registered for an account so I could address any problems with the section that I created. It is clear which anonymous edits were made by me and which edits were made under my username. As for all the other edits, I see edits from other users and other anonymous IPs. None of those people are me and I find it upsetting that you try to claim a certain anonymous user is me. Please do not make such claims unless you have a way to prove it. I have been straight forward about who I am and I have nothing to hide. If I am playing games, like Tarage has said than why would I have registered for an account in the first place? The very action of doing so associated anonymous edits I made with my username. Again, do not make such claims, if you or Tarage insist on doing so, I would expect to be presented with some sort of proof. Those kind of claims put me in a bad light and it does not make me feel very welcome here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanknowledgeguru (talk • contribs) 17:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

(You are responding to my post (Bbb23), not to Toddst1.) I appreciate your long explanation. I also understand your resentment at being "accused" of something you say you didn't do. However, you have to understand that a lot of editors do bad things on Wikipedia and then deny doing them. Administrators (like me) don't have to have "proof" to make certain judgments; proof, unfortunately, isn't always easy to obtain. The best thing you can do at Wikipedia is to edit constructively and in a way that doesn't provoke controversy, particularly in the beginning. It's one thing for a new user to come in and make a small change to an article, e.g., corrrect a spelling error or a grammatical error, but when your first edit is to add material about a recent notorious event, you obviously run the risk that you may get into a dispute over whether that material is appropriate to add, or whether the wording needs to be changed, etc.

I'm glad you've decided not to battle for your material once the lock on the article expires, but even if you want to discuss it, try to do so in a way that focuses on the content, not on the other editors involved. Even if another editor says something about you that you don't like, ignore it; in so doing, you will only enhance your credibility.

Wikipedia can be a tough place for a newcomer, particularly one who, like you, jumps right into the thick of it. Rather than insist on things, listen to what more experienced editors say and try to learn. I understand that being experienced doesn't mean you're always right, but there are ways on Wikipedia to seek help if you feel you're being unfairly criticized or attacked without getting into a battle yourself.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation Bbb23. I will attempt to get a better grasp on Wikipedia's policies before doing much more editing. Sorry for any trouble that this has caused you. I really didn't mean for things to escalate so far. I would have expected the more experience users to take steps to prevent that from happening, but since that didn't happen like it should have, I will keep to my word and restrain from making any edits to the article until the issue is resolved by a consensus of other users. Susanknowledgeguru (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Susan, I'm not taking a position on the content dispute, but I thought your latest post on the talk page was great. Now you just have to be patient and wait for others to respond. Don't assume consensus by silence. If you feel like you're not getting anywhere, take a look at these dispute resolution mechanisms.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

For the record Susan, someone disagreeing with you is not a personal attack. Please learn to put distance between yourself and your edits, as an attack on one does not mean an attack on the other. --Tarage (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I never intended for things to get out of hand as they did. I have backed off as is evidenced by my conversation with the administrator. I do expect the same thing from you. I think we can admit that we both went to far and I hope you realize that the were things that we could have done much sooner on both ends to diffuse the situation. Having said that. I will not be editing the article once the lock is removed, though I do plan to contribute to the talk page regarding the content of the article. I hope we can put this behind us and move on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanknowledgeguru (talk • contribs) 23:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

If you are hoping I will claim fault, I'm sorry to dash your hopes. I only wished to explain the difference between attacking someone's edits and attacking someone. At no point did I insult or attack you. --Tarage (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Tarage, I feel that you certainly do owe me an apology, however, I do not expect one from you. My intention in writing the above statement was not for you to admit fault on your part. I want to be able to move on and work together, especially since we have a mutual interest in the article in question. I have given both you and the Administrators my apologies and word that I will not edit the article after it is unlocked.

All I expect from you is that you will back off with the insults. Your groundless accusation that I have edited the article as multiple anonymous users is one example of that. I feel that a statement such as that is insulting to me and could possibly considered attacking me. Saying things like that have nothing to do with the content of the article. Anyhow, can we just move on now? I really don't wish to argue about that anymore, it's not going to go anywhere and I don't have that kind of time to waste. You don't need to apologize to me, you don't need to admit fault. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanknowledgeguru (talk • contribs) 00:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Bhicks77 reported by User:TriiipleThreat (Result: Blocked)

Page: Howard Stern (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bhicks77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [122]

• 1st revert: [123]
• 2nd revert: [124]
• 3rd revert: [125]
• 4th revert: [126]
• 5th revert: [127]
• 6th revert: [128]
• 7th revert: [129]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [130]

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

• Bhicks77 has repeatedly uploaded non-free images of a living person and has been warned that that this is a copyright violation on his talk page, in edit summaries in the article and in the Commons.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Ahendrl reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Indeffed)

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

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

• 1st revert: [131]
• 2nd revert: [132]
• 3rd revert: [133]
• 4th revert: [134]
• [135]
• [136]

6rr bright. New user, doesn't understand hatnotes and disambigs. Raised at talk: first, but they went ahead despite. And kept doing it, despite multi-editor reversions. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

For what it is worth, my use of rollback there was inappropriate, since it was not simple vandalism, and I was not paying attention well enough, but I do agree that adding Central African Republic to the hatnote there is not a good choice. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

First thing I do is lave a comment at the Talk Page, then I get a reply and try to build consensus, got no answers, decide it's safe to edit the page, someone comes and reverts, gives no explanation on article talk page, no explanation on my talk page, it's obviously a vandal. I revert his edits and get a warning, then he stops editing not to be blocked and asks his friends to keep the "revert war" for him. All this time refusing to use the fucking Talk Page, and now this?! Ahendrl (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

This many rrs, it's vandalism. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

BTW - another new user with an excellent grip on policy. Who are you a sockpuppet of? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Making assumptions, typical... There's no need for me to be anyone's puppet. I'm even wondering why you brought this up, you must be afraid someone will discover your friends aren't friends at all. Ahendrl (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Also developing at Caribe. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

In response to this, I agreed that my use of the rollback feature was inappropriate, and I should have left an edit summary. But I don't agree that your change is good, and even if I did, that does not mean that you can further violate 3RR. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

How the hell was I supposed to reach consensus if the other party just kept reverting content without talk? It's fine that you think the change is not good, why didn't we speak about that BEFORE making me get the fucking 3rd edit? As if I should knew I was going to get one anyway, or as if I knew I had means to report the vandalizer. Despite all this you lot just keep gangbangging, am I supposed to believe this is unbiased from your part? Ahendrl (talk) 01:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Now at 7rr [137], despite some pretty obvious warnings. WP:ROPE Andy Dingley (talk) 01:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked indef; a 24 hour block isn't going to cut it. I would want to be confident they aren't going to be this disruptive again before unblocking. Also, my "trolling sock of an indef blocked editor" radar is going off. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk page access? Or are we going to leave it as a soapbox for calling everyone else "a retard"? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Mautby and User:FF-UK reported by User:Chaheel Riens (Result: no blocks so WP:DR can proceed )

Page: AC power plugs and socket-outlets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mautby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: FF-UK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [138]

• revert: [139] by Mautby - reverting intial reversion.
• revert: [140] by FF-UK
• revert: [141] - my reversion on the basis of BRD, in that the initial state of the article should remain until discussion has completed
• revert: [142] - Mautby reverte me again claiming that it was not reversion, but "wholsale culling"
• revert: [143] - I reverted again, stating the previous BRD argument, and inviting discussion to continue on the talk page prior to changes being implemented.
• revert: [144] - final (as of report being filed) reversion to include controversial naming.

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [145] - initial invitation to follow BRD convention
• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [146] - additional reminder of BRD, and warning of intent to file ANE report if necessary.

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [147]

Comments:

This has been brewing for a while - there are several knowledgeable editors on the page who strive to include technical terms in most instances. Editor Mautby renamed the page to include the term "outlets" and then straight after edited to include the term throughout the article. The move is being contested, as are the inclusion of the terms. I'll abide by the outcome, but believe that until that outcome is decided it should remain "sockets" not "oulet-sockets" as has been contested. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• Note. This isn't the forum to resolve a content dispute. There's been no breach of 3RR by any editor. The edit-warring seems to be shared. The reported editors were not notified (saying something on the article talk page is insufficient); I've notified them.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not requesting any kind of resolution (or even input) to the obvious content dispute. I'm contesting the behaviour regarding the state of the page whilst the dispute is ongoing on the talk page. And I'm aware that nobody has transgressed 3RR, but - as you point out - edit warring can take place with less edits. My actions in each case have been to revert back to the original state while discussion takes place.

I've also taken the liberty of informing (officially) Wtshymanski, as they are also involved in the brouhaha. I accept any comment that all informed should have been notified individually as I thought the talk page - which is heavily monitored - would be sufficient. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

My point about the edit-warring being shared included you, the two reported editors, and Wtshymanski. It may seem to you that it's okay for you to revert back to the "original state", but it's not. I'm aware of WP:BRD, but just because an editor doesn't follow it doesn't trigger an edit-warring exemption. My inclination is to lock the article until the four of you can work it out.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Rather than reverting to the "initial state of the article" (sic) as he falsly claims, Chaheel Riens apparently used a text editor to simply eliminate all of the references to "socket-outlets". In doing so he damaged all references to standards which (with the exception of NEMA standards) use the correct term "socket-outlets" in their title. That is unacceptable behaviour, he has admitted that this is his technique and has caused damage elsewhere ("I checked this, and it happened because I imported the entire page into a text editor to run a search&replace on liter -> litre" User talk:Chaheel Riens). This is not editing, it is butchery. It ill-behoves such an editor to make complaints about others, especially when the term he is objecting to is the correct term as evidenced by many national and international standards and professional bodies. Chaheel Riens has demonstrated no knowledge or understanding of the subject, either in this instance, or his previous attempts to mangle BS 1363. I see that, in his complaint, he cannot even spell or put the words in the right order "oulet-sockets"! Mautby (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I apologise for the wholsale error. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment If there is to be no further decision, could this be closed, please? Some of us would like to take this to WP:DRN but it seems that until this complaint is closed, they won't accept it (only one such thing can be extant at a time). Jeh (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm amenable to any external deciding influence and have no issues with closing the topic. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Based on Chaheel Riens's comment immediately above, I'm declining this report, so other WP:DR processes can proceed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Andy Dingley reported by User:Ahendrl (Result: No action)

Guy keeps making reverts to Automobile, does not want to reach consensus and asks his friends to revert for him so won't be banned. Ahendrl (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Part of same thread as above. Meritless. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• No violation Mark Arsten (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Asher Heimermann reported by User:Mesconsing (Result: Topic ban in lieu of blocking (i.e. no block))

Page: The Sheboygan Press (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Sheboygan, Wisconsin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Asher Heimermann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to {The Sheboygan Press): [148]
Previous version reverted to (Sheboygan, Wisconsin): [149]

The Sheboygan Press:

• 1st revert: [150]
• 2nd revert: [151]
• 3rd revert: [152]
• 4th revert: [153]

Sheboygan, Wisconsin:

• 1st revert: [154]
• 2nd revert: [155]
• 3rd revert: [156]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [157] [158]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [159]

Comments:
Uncivil comments

• Labeling legitimate edits as vandalism:
  • [160]
  • [161]
• Taunting an administrator:
  • [162]

Vandalism (replaced another editor's signature with his own):

• [163]

-- Mesconsing (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I reject this claim. It seems Mesconsing has a problem with my edits. Look at his history. Edits I've taken part in have be rejected and/or merged into city article. The Sheboygan Daily is a legitimate part of Sheboygan news. I feel like I am dealing with a 14 year old kid here. Asher Heimermann (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Asher, it appears you were blocked for 4.5 years for battleground behavior like this, and years ago used a sockpuppet to add a link to an anti-Sheboygan Press blog on The Sheboygan Press. I see you've been editing without a block for over 1.5 years now, and I'd hate to re-start the blocking cycle. But you still don't get to start with a completely fresh slate, and you need to stay away from behavior that got you blocked in the past. Someone with your history should expect to be given less slack. You also have a major conflict of interest regarding The Sheboygan Daily, and are adding links to it in a highly non-neutral manner. Combining the conflict of interest, non-neutral editing, the edit warring, and the battleground approach, I'm topic banning you from any edits having to do with The Sheboygan Press and The Sheboygan Daily. Not just those articles, but anything to do with the subjects of the articles, in any other article on Wikipedia. If you violate this topic ban, I will block you from editing, for disruption. I'll leave more details on your talk page in a few minutes. Because of the topic ban, I'm declining an edit warring block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Hugo Spinelli reported by User:Raeky (Result: 24h)

Page: Brady Haran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hugo Spinelli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: Removal of template for LINKFARM
• 2nd revert: Restoring links after it was deleted, first
• 3rd revert: Restoring them again, this time calling it vandal edit

This user has shown flagrant disregard of WP:AGF and has made several uncivil remarks, accusing other editors of bad-faith, and templeting regulars, even though it was clearly good faith edits. The user's ownership of the article has been pointed out by multiple editors. The discussion about the long list of external links to Brady Haran's youtube channels is on the talk page, here. Three editors now have commeneted that the list is in violation of WP:LINKFARM and that a single WP:EL to Mr. Haran's official webpage has a link to all of his youtube channels and that a mirror of them on his article is unnecessary. User:Hugo Spinelli has charaterized people's tagging the list as a link farm as WP:GAMING and removal of it as WP:VANDAL. Even though he's not technically violated WP:3RR, he's clearly edit warring to keep this material on the page against WP:CONSENSUS.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [164]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Brady_Haran#EL_as_linkfarm

Comments:

I don't think short of an external party stepping in here to handle this that User:Hugo Spinelli change his mind or behavior, three editors have not been successful yet to convince him. — raekyt 00:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Concur and then some.
  • Spinelli "accuses" me of wanting to delete the article. I responded and refuted his accusation here. [165]
  • I attempted to engage Spinelli regarding a CRYSTAL entry he had added. After a short discussion which was not productive, I removed the speculative comment . Spinelli proceeded to tag my talkpage with an edit warring template. [166] (While I was immoderate with my response, I feel less so now. Why? See next.)
  • I moved the listing of Haran's video's into a bibliography section, hoping to avoid linkfarm issues. And I explained my move on the article talk page. Spinelli undid my move, made a comment on the talk page in which he accused me of making "secret" changes to the article, and then proceeded to template my talk page with an abuse of templating message after I had added a linkfarm hatnote to the EL section. [167]. (I was tempted to repeat my earlier comment, but this ANI may have a more positive result.)
  • Spinelli has accused other editors of vandalism, and even after the good faith nature of certain edits was explained, he has refused (or failed) to strikeout an inappropriate portion of User_talk:Hugo_Spinelli#Freedom_of_Choice. (Even now, as I compose this, he continues his allegations of vandalism [168].
  • I am concerned about Spinelli's subpages as being WP:FAKEARTICLE. I addressed this concern with him and offered a simple solution, e.g., add no-index templates. Spinelli has responded with a shouted "Do not edit" the subpages message. (Spinelli would do well to look further up on this the ANI page [169] at a current FAKEARTICLE discussion now underway.)
• What to do? I think (and hope) that blocking Spinelli for a short time would give him time to reflect on how his negative interactions with editors is disruptive. He needs to read the helpful comments that have been posted and consider them as such. – S. Rich (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)01:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Note. I left a message/warning on Hugo's talk page and am waiting for his response.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• His response/threat. — raekyt 02:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Raeky nominated the Brady Haran article for deletion. I think that's completely valid grounds for calling his edits on this article into question. Also, regarding Rich, he told Spinelli "Fuck you". Has Spinelli said anything equally uncivil? --Xerographica (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • My AfD was purely good-faith, and I've done nothing since to say otherwise. — raekyt 03:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
    • You wouldn't AfD a topic that you thought was notable enough to keep. If you don't think a topic is notable then it's extremely likely that any future edits will reflect your view on the topic. --Xerographica (talk) 03:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Clearly I didn't think it wasn't notable enough to keep, else I wouldn't of nominated it. But part of WP:AGF you can't ASSUME I was acting in bad-faith for any of my past edits/comments. The reason your here wouldn't have anything to do with this? — raekyt 03:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
        • If you want to delete an entire topic, then it's not an assumption that you want to delete as many parts of the topic as you can. I'm here because I'm vouching for Spinelli as an editor. Wikipedia needs far more editors like Spinelli. People who actually make the effort to build Wikipedia up rather than simply tear it down. Plus, I've been a victim of Rich's continuous harassment...and now so is Spinelli. This pattern of harassment needs to be taken into account...especially since Rich is so interested in seeing Spinelli blocked. --Xerographica (talk) 03:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
          • Even though all you said pretty much flies in the face of WP:AGF and is probably in violation of WP:CIVIL, if you truly are here to advocate for Spinelli, and not to be disruptive because you have some vendetta against Rich, then I recommend you try to talk some sense into him to retract the threat he made against the admin. — raekyt 03:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
            • Talk sense into him? His response was measured, well thought out and entirely reasonable. Do you think it's a "threat" because he promised to "take further action" if blocked? Would it be a threat to say that he'd protest his block? People are given the opportunity to protest their blocks...and that's how it should be. The large bulk of this problem stems from the fact that Rich and SPECIFICO stalked Spinelli from Freedom of choice to Brady Haran. The admin is attacking the victim instead of the editors who are blatantly violating WP:Harassment. In the admin's defense though, it's a bit unreasonable to expect him to see the pattern of abuse. Which is why I'm here. Now that I've shed light on the pattern, hopefully the admin will see the problem in an entirely new light. --Xerographica (talk) 09:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - While I actually agree with S. Rich and SPECIFICO on the merits of the question, I think that Raeky's description of the situation is a little disingenuous. He began his interaction with this article, as mentioned above, by nominating it for deletion, and since then he has only removed material and tagged the article for improvement. I'm sure that he is acting to improve the article, as he sees it, but I also understand why Spinelli feels attacked, especially because at least one other user (Eduemoni) showed a similar pattern of behavior. To my eyes "accusations" are flying on all sides, and have been since the AfD discussion, and everybody needs to just calm down a bit. squibix(talk) 13:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Why must everyone who voted to keep the article that I nominated for deletion not ASSUME good faith, have a read of WP:AAGF. Removing some content that was clearly against policy, and consensus, is not bad-faith editing. Assuming I'm trying to devalue the article so it could be deleted is borderline a personal attack, and I'm starting to take offense. — raekyt 13:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree it wasn't bad-faith editing, and I agree with the removal. What I'd hope is that you could avoid taking offense, and assume good faith without accusing other people of attacking you. squibix(talk) 14:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Having read Spinelli's talk page I want to clarify that I don't think that anyone is actually attacking him. But I know from personal experience that it can be frustrating, when you're working on adding content to the encyclopedia, to be hit with a barrage of policy-based notices and comments from users who are more focused on the administrative side of things. As an elementary school teacher, what I want to say in this case is: "is this a big problem, or a small problem?" If everyone can assume good faith and slow down a bit, I think the original question can be resolved without any more conflict. squibix(talk) 13:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree it can be frustrating, but Spinelli's response has been to lash out with incivility and threats, which I hope we all can agree is counterproductive to the project's goal. — raekyt 13:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Haha, it's confusing that we're both editing at the same time. Yes, I agree it's counterproductive. I also personally think it's counterproductive to escalate the situation to this forum, though I understand why you did. I feel that if we wait, say, a week, everyone will be more reasonable and we'll be able to agree on a sensible, policy-based solution. squibix(talk) 14:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The admin that reviewed it gave him a very sensible offer, which is basically just that, apologize for the incivility and take a break for a week, but he responded with threats, so... It's basically in the admins hands now or another admin. The reason it was brought here was because he was edit warring, and three editors was trying to get him to see that the content wasn't necessary for the article and why. — raekyt 14:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. My opinion is just that the people who are on the right side of the issue can be the ones to wait, rather than forcing a climbdown. The section isn't really a linkfarm, so there's no rush to remove it. squibix(talk) 14:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I agree with Hugo, in part; it is not reasonable to expect him to stay off the article while it is subject to AfD. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not part of an AfD, that was in the past? Also your 4th revert isn't anything to do with the above reverts about the list of projects in the EL section. — raekyt 15:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• 4th revert: [170]; although the edit is one of the most constructive I've seen on that article, it is technically a revert. (Note: I'm in conflict with Hugo and with X, so I may not block, and don't think I would if I could.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • While Spinelli labeled it a revert to my edit, I don't think it actually was. (He just used the term to take a cheap jab at me.) I had made some changes on the award listing, he complained about them on the talk page, and I posted the confusing template. (I think that's how the sequence went.) Removing the template & retitling the section was fine with me. In fact, I was about to do just that when I posted {{inuse}}. I did not notice that Spinelli had made the change. Still, Spinelli thinks that posting an inuse banner is disruptive editing. And he accussed me of that on the article talk page. Alas, if he's not edit warring over one issue he will find another. – S. Rich (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
• User:raeky and User:Srich32977 please, be WP:HONEST.

1. "Haran's official webpage has a link to all of his youtube channels" No, it doesn't have a link to PsyFile nor PhilosphyFile. User:raeky knows that, since I have already mentioned that on the talk page.
2. "he's clearly edit warring" I have stated that I will not undo if you delete the list again and I didn't undo the deletion of the "Future Projects" section after we discussed that on the talk page.
3. "And I explained my move on the article talk page." Here is his "explanation": "move list from ELs & put in article". That's it. He removed three entries on the list without discussing it first. Proof. His edit was done at 14:59, 17 February 2013, but his comment was posted at 17:51, 19 February 2013, two days later! That's how long it took me to realize that three entries were missing.

As for the last comment, here's what actually happened:

07:04, 20 February 2013: Srich removed all "won" from the "Awards and nominations" section;

07:08, 20 February 2013: included a template now saying that it is not clear which ones he won and which he was just nominated to;

07:23, 20 February 2013: I fixed that by renaming the section to "Awards" and removed the template (and he accused me of edit warring);

07:38, 20 February 2013: trying to prove his point, Srich ironically included an "In Use" template with the summary "I'm going to fix the Awards section!";

07:40, 20 February 2013: concluded his move with undoing his own edit with the summary: "Good for you. You cud'a done so without a talk page comment.". (Proof)

I will not accuse any of you of bad faith with no purpose, I have accepted your constructive contributions, like Srich's latest edit, including a specific "citation needed" instead of templating the whole article or deleting information (I appreciate that). As for WP:AGF, it says "Avoid accusing others of bad faith without clear evidence that indicates bad faith", but overall, I have plenty of clear evidence of WP:GAMING and a few cases of vandalism.

The premise of this ANEW is wrong. I have not violated the 3RR.

By the way, Rasky, WP:DTR is not a WP policy or guideline. See also WP:TR. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked - 24 hours to User:Hugo Spinelli. This is a regular 3RR violation. I see a lot of discussion here, but the person named in the report is not offering to back off in the future so I don't see any ground for suspending the sanction. Though Raeky has been involved as well, I see only three reverts by him. EdJohnston (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Wikieditorpro reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: 48h)

Page: Yitzhak Shapira (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 05:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

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

1. 04:37, 20 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 538832065 by Nomoskedasticity (talk) Reverted distortion of view.")
2. 05:05, 20 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 539175412 by Nomoskedasticity (talk) Reverted as per BPL with multiple issues e.g. distortion, defamation etc. Read the source.")

• Earlier edit similar to the above, making clear that both of the above are reverts: [171]
• Warning: [172]
• This article is restricted to 1RR per ARBPIA, and so the two reverts in quick succession this morning are a straight violation. The article has been stable for quite some time; if Wikieditorpro wants to make changes he should begin a discussion on the talk page, something he has not done. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• • Note: the editor is now editing the article further: [173]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Zero0000

1. [174] Accuses another editor of anti-semitism.
2. [175] Reacts defiantly when asked to stop personal attacks.
3. [176] Deletes text and two sources, with edit summary "no source"
4. [177] Deletes more text and a source, with edit summary "no supporting source"
5. [178] Deletes text with three academic sources, with edit summary "Unsourced, NPOV statements"
6. [179] Deletes sourced text, with edit summary "No source"
7. [180] Replaces source with direct quote, claiming it is "non-sequitor", by other text on the same subject and a source that does not support it.

Note the pattern? Zero^talk 10:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for WP:1RR violation. Warned under WP:ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Snackathon reported by User:Pratanu.roy (Result: 24h)

Page: 2013 Shahbag protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Snackathon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [181]
• 2nd revert: [182]
• 3rd revert: [183]
• 4th revert: [184]
• 5th revert: [185]
• 6th revert: [186]
• 7th revert: [187]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [188]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [189]

Comments: Multiple reverts have been performed without resolving the issue and disregarding the warning

-Pratanu.roy (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Roy, please use your sign after reporting. I've change some formatting mistakes, I think it is ok now.--

Freemesm (talk) 09:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion.

Pratanu.roy (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. He is claiming a BLP exemption I assume on the "rape of minors" However that is what he was convicted of.[190] Darkness Shines (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

That source wasn't mentioned. So I thought it was BLP. Insert the source then. Also they are all targetting me because they disagree. I am following the policy. You can see on talk page. They are mixing different edits to make it seem like i undo the same thing. They are different edits. Please can admin comment on the article talk page. Also please lock page for new users and unregistered user.Snackathon (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Here is one more revert (8th revert). Despite repeated requests, Snackathon is still reverting content. 8 reverts in less than 12 hours!! --Ragib (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Not all of the above reverts may be counted, because some claim to be removing unsourced material that is negative to a BLP subject. But even when I exclude those from 3RR, I still find reverts by Snackathon at the following times: 04:35, 05:02, 08:05, 18:51 and 19:04. Regardless of the child rape charges (apparently now confirmed per the reference by Darkness Shines), Snackathon's 19:04 restored the POV tag which had previously been removed. This is five reverts by my calculation. Snackathon might still be able to avoid a block if he would agree to take a break from this article for a week. EdJohnston (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. 05:02 is not revert, so now it only four reverts it seems. Please consider this was BLP based delete. BLP notice says violations should be removed without discussion. The BBC article did not contain this accusation. So I thought it was BLP violation. This includes 08:05, 18:51, 19:04. After Darkness said he had another source, I did not revert. If he would have said this source from the beginning, we would not have had any problem. Please consider. Also, I am still discussing the edit from 4:35, which the others changed back. I did not revert that. It still is not in the article until we finish discussing. The others did not respond yet. I will RFC, because I think people in the article are misrepresenting. I also think there needs to be less bias in the article. I applied POV template, but this was removed without any discussion from others. I think this is unfair. We need to discuss. Please do not block me. Please join article and make it a better article. Also, the reason it seems that I constantly reverted is because of vandalism from IP addresses claiming to be minor correction. But they were adding BLP without citation, and removing POV template. How can I requset for blocking page from IP?Snackathon (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocked - 24 hours. The user was offered a deal, but did not take it. A whole string of rapid reverts (for whatever reason, legitimate or not) places stress on the system and causes turmoil. Please return after the block and negotiate more patiently. Be aware that the person, Abdul Quader Mollah who might conceivably be maligned due to the BLP issues is widely named as a 'butcher' so this is not some quiet individual who should not be disturbed by careless Wikipedians. He seems to have done plenty to deserve his reputation. EdJohnston (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Tilapidated reported by User:UseTheCommandLine (Result: Warned)

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

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

• 1st revert: [191]
• 2nd revert: [192]
• 3rd revert: [diff]
• 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [193]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [194]

Comments:

Was notified on WT:MED of this and looked like an edit war. There has been some talk on Tilapidated but I did not have time to dig into it, maybe editors here can. It seemed like a fairly clear cut case of edit-warring behavior, though perhaps not 3RR.

Thank you for your comment, I would appreciate your advice in dealing with situations where one or more users consistently revert almost any changes to an article, and do not enter into any meaningful dialogue on the issue on the talk page. Are there any community expectations that a user reverting changes engage in dialogue about their reverting, or is it acceptable simply to block any additions to a page? Thanks for your help, Tilapidated (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Warned It looks like some users are willing to discuss the issue on the talk page. Please gain consensus there instead of continually reverting. If you feel that there are issues that cannot be solved on the talk page, you can use an WP:RFC or take the issue to WP:DRN. Particularly when dealing with featured articles, the burden is on the editor who wants to change the article to gain consensus before making large changes (see WP:OAS). Even if you feel that other editors are not living up to the community expectations on the talk page, you cannot keep reverting or blocks will be issued. I will close this with a warning for now, but please don't continue reverting without consensus or you may be blocked in the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Update There has been substantially more traffic, both on the talk page and on the article, additions, reverts by other editors, and re-reverts by Tilapidated over the last 24 hours. This has led to the page being protected until March 1. Though I have not really participated, i thought it was germane to this discussion. I am placing this here because I am not sure whether or not to file a new report, though perhaps the page protection will handle things. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Astronomer28 reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result:31 hours )

Page: Nicolaus Copernicus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Astronomer28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: all are clear reverts.

• 1st revert: [195]
• 2nd revert: [196]
• 3rd revert: [197]
• 4th revert: [198]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [199]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see talk page. This is a longstanding problem.

Comments:

• Warned Because Astronomer28 is participating in the talk page discussion, I did not block him for the fourth revert. I did, however, leave a strongly-worded reminder that he could have been blocked and that he needs to discuss rather than edit war.[200] If the user were to revert the article again, I would block him for it, since he'd be choosing to go down a path that's been clearly explained as disruptive. —C.Fred (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I saw the report and I blocked for 31 hours, I didn't see your post while I was reviewing this. Even though he been discussing on the talk page, his ignorance of consensus there, and the disruptive edit warring/nationalistic POV pushing, I felt like a block is in order, so he can calm down and figure out what he is doing wrong. If he comes off the block and goes back to revert warring, I'll probably make it indef. Secret ^account 17:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Secret ^account 18:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Cessna38671 reported by User:Ben Ben (Result: Blocked for one week)

Page: Southaven High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cessna38671 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [201]

• 1st revert: 23:53, 16 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 538527855 by Ben Ben (talk) These are notable alumni. Stop pushing your own personal opinions on it just because they do not have their own wiki page")
• 2nd revert: 04:21, 17 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 538634972 by Ben Ben (talk)")
• 3rd revert: 09:16, 17 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 538678268 by Rivertorch (talk)")
• 4th revert: 06:01, 21 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 539291540 by Ben Ben (talk) removed red")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

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

Comments:I have tried to explain it first in my edit summary, then on the talk page but have been ignored. --Ben Ben (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Cessna38671 has declined to respond to notices at their user talk page or to say anything on the article's talk page. I don't know if it's an ownership issue or just a failure to realize this is a collaborative project, but it doesn't bode well for the future of the article. Rivertorch (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week. The editor has a long history of disruptive editing, including vandalism. One week is a first step. If they choose to edit again, my suspicion is an indef is inevitable. @Rivertorch, the editor doesn't do talk.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

User:The long road homw reported by User:Heironymous Rowe (Result: Locked)

Page: Hansen Site (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The long road homw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [203]
• 2nd revert: [204]
• 3rd revert: [205]
• 4th revert: [206]
• 5th revert: [207]

A newish editor, they got ticked when I reverted an uncited addition here [208] (complete with their own "uncited" tag, lol), they then picked an article I had created at random from a list I keep on my user page and began an edit war over this. Smithsonian trinomials are included after the title on hundreds of archaeological site articles. Since the creation of an article about the trinomials, many have been linked to the article instead of trying to explain what they are on every single article. I thought this had died down, until today when they posted an help needed tag on their page [209], I decided to be nice and help them with figure out how to do the cites [210], and they decide to begin their edit war again. Sigh.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [211], [212], [213]

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

Comments:
Heiro 21:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

This is my previous [214] edit. My edit does not include an explanation of trinomial—or Smithsonian Trinomial. (Edits before that, is a different story.) My edit is an act of labelling a (cryptic) alphanumeric "word". - Just because someone is used to seeing "Hansen Site, immediately followed by trinomial in parentheses"—doesn't mean that our article should do the same. I would appreciate it if the plaintiff would try to find some other arena to (try to) intimidate and harass individuals. --The long road homw (talk) 11:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. I've fully protected the article for one week. The other choice was to block both editors. I know diddly about the merits of the content dispute, but battling and screaming at each other is not the way to resolve it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Page: Italian general election, 2013 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nick.mon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [215]

• 1st revert: [216]
• 2nd revert: [217]
• 4th revert: [218]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [219]

Comments:
Nick.mon's talk page is already plastered with warnings against edit-warrings. He has engaged in edit-wars many times across several articles. He has been reported several times for edit warring (1, 2) and other disruptive editing. (3) He never uses edit summaries to explain his contentious edits and never uses talk pages to discuss disputes, even though he has been explained how edit summaries work and why discussing on talk pages is important. --RJFF (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we could insert all the candidates for the election not only four. I only wanted to hel Wikipedia, but if you think if you say that I was wrong, it's ok...I would like only to improve pages but if you think that your edits are better, do whatever you want... --Nick.mon (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Contents should be discussed here, please. --RJFF (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Note. I've left a note on Nick.mon's talk page. If he accepts the terms I've offered, I will consider him warned.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
• Warned. Nick.mon has accepted the terms.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Shallowgravy reported by User:J Greb (Result: Warned)

Page: Template:Black Canary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Shallowgravy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [220]

• 1st revert: [221] (recreation after a year and a half as a redirect)
• 2nd revert: [222]
• 3rd revert: [223]
• 4th revert: [224]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [225] Not a templated warning, but an attempt to point out that the bold recreation needed to be disucssed and shown to have consensus first, not just done then kept for discussion to remove it/

Comments:

There is currently a discussion at Template talk:Birds of Prey#Splitting, right under the section from 2011. At this point I'm starting to feel that Shallowgravy is paying lipservice as long as they get the unneeded, unwarranted template in place. - J Greb (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: And after notifying them about this post - [226] - I got this [227] w/o a case showing up here... - J Greb (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

And a boilerplate warning after the "notice" but place before it... [228]... - J Greb (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I was wary to restart the template but after much editing and trimming found that it help only pertinent information, yet after setting up a discussion all I got was undos and snarky comments such as "uh...no" which served to help in no way. I've tried to be patient and make changes where they were needed but this is but one instance where J. Greb has harassed me by back and forth reversion and simply stating that he feels that a certain characters is not important enough or belongs to another character. I'm merely trying to help fill out a template and give availiable information a link yet keep finding roadblocks where they merely wait till I get tired of fighting it and give up. I'm sorry if I've made any mistakes in taking this step this is the first time I've tried to report a problem like this and its still new to me. - Shallowgravy (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

See #User:Shallowgravy reported by User:J Greb (Result: ) above... - J Greb (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe comment to the above post instead of copying and altering? - J Greb (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

For one thing because this is new to me. That does not make it any less important. I'd like to keep this civil but it keeps escalating. I'm sorry if I've done things in the improper manner, but I'm trying that's all that matters. I don't mean to offend anyone or step on any toes by the minor mistakes I made, but I need help resolving this and this seems the best route. - Shallowgravy (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Note. I've left a note on Shallowgravy's talk page. They can self-revert their last edit, leave the template alone, and discuss the issue, or they may be blocked. I would caution J Greb to also leave the template alone as they are already at 3 reverts.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • That's why it landed here - flipping it again wasn't an option. - J Greb (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Warned. Shallowgravy has self-reverted. I am therefore going to close this as warned. J Greb, I've commented on options for Shallowgravy on his talk page. As an admin and an experienced editor, you might want to help him along procedurally (for example, I'm not familiar with WP:RFD). Obviously, you don't have to agree with his point of view, but that doesn't mean you can't facilitate the process.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

User:XavierGreen reported by User:Danlaycock (Result: Blocked)

Page: Sultanate of Sulu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: XavierGreen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [229]

• 1st revert: [230]
• 2nd revert: [231]
• 3rd revert: [232]
• 4th revert: [233]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [234]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:List_of_states_with_limited_recognition#Sultanate_of_Sulu

Comments:

XavierGreen has been trying to push the view the the Sultanate of Sulu has been revived after a 100 year hiatus. Aside from the bright line violation listed above, XavierGreen has edit warred to include them at List of sovereign states and List of states with limited recognition. A clear consensus has emerged at Talk:List_of_states_with_limited_recognition#Sultanate_of_Sulu that it is premature to claim this. However, XavierGreen has been pushing this view onto numerous other pages including Gallery of sovereign-state flags [235] and List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia [236]. TDL (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Randomocity999 reported by User:Toccata quarta (Result: Blocked)

Page: List of Jewish chess players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Randomocity999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [237]

• 1st revert: [238]
• 2nd revert: [239]
• 3rd revert: [240]
• 4th revert: [241]
• 5th revert: [242]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [243]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:List of Jewish chess players#Kasparov

User is not willing to listen to others' arguments, also teases people with pointless words such as "sweety". Toccata quarta (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Cyberlink420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Filing a new report after multiple good faith attempts to tell user Cyberlink420 to not engage in an edit war. Accuses anyone he disagrees with with vandalism. Has repeatedly used this tactic of accusing anyone he disagrees with with vanadalism with other users in the past. Reverted edits 3 times on Sonic & All-Stars Racing Transformed over the past 30 minutes. 20 times over the past two months. 118.21.142.128 (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• I'd like to point out that he IP has reverted an equal number of times, their edits have been terrible, and has not been discussing on the talk page properly, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 00:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, the fact that he's threatening other users using personal information. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

User:75.51.175.249 reported by User:Grandmaster (Result: closed)

Page: Stepan Shahumyan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.51.175.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [244]

• 1st revert: [245]
• 2nd revert: [246]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [247]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [248]

Comments:
The IP came along and tried to make POV edits promoting pro-Soviet view of events, and then made a massive revert to a 4 months old version, removing lots of sourced content along the way. My warning and invitation to discussion were ignored. The IP does not appear to be a genuine newbie, because his edits show familiarity with wikiformatting. I have a reason to suspect that we are dealing with a banned user who tried to do similar POV editing in this article in the past. Grandmaster 11:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• The IP is only at 3RR now, so they aren't clearly blockable yet. I reverted their most recent edit and added another warning to the talk page, and I've watchlisted the article. The possibility that this is a banned user evading a block is better addressed at SPI, where there is a long history and where checkuser might possibly be helpful. If this particular edit war turns out not be an isolated incident, I suggest that you reopen that case. --Orlady (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you. Grandmaster 00:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• The ip hasn't edited for 2 days so I have closed this as stale/resolved. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

User:69.47.228.36 reported by User:ChroniclerSanjay (Result: Protected)

Page: South Indian film industry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 64.47.228.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: All are reverts

• 1st revert: [249]
• 2nd revert: [250]
• 3rd revert: [251]
• 4th revert: [252]
• 5th revert: [253]

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

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

Comments:

69.47.228.36 refused to heed the discussion in talk page where things have been explained. 69.47.228.36 started removing a well cited information which existed for a long period in this page. This started when 69.47.228.36 found that the wrong statement s/he wanted to to insert in Malayalam cinema page contradicted with existing information in this page. Even as I report this, 69.47.228.36 has violated 3RR in Cinema of India page too with same intentions as mentioned above. ChroniclerSanjay (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Admin, user Sanjay and his friends removed citations regarding information provided for an edit. I am not in an edit war. But we need to show facts in Wikipedia, not based on certain interviews/people's opinion etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.228.36 (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected Its an ip hopping so semi prot is a better optionSpartaz ^Humbug! 15:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Janke reported by User:IsaacAA (Result: Stale)

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

Previous version reverted to: [254]

• 1st revert: [255]
• 2nd revert: [256]
• 3rd revert: [257]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [258]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [259]

Comments: User:Janke feels that this somewhat technical aspect of animation does not need a citation because it's a "fact". IsaacAA (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

User:IsaacAA removes a well-known, easily observed fact (just watch any Anime or TV animation frame-by-frame, and it is immediately apparent that they contain 3x or 4x frames of single drawings.) IsaacAA replaces a general statement with one single example of one animator. Note: In my second edit, I included his example (thus it wasn't even a revert). I oppose IsaacAA's deletion of the more general statement. If he's not willing to search the web for a citation of the general fact, I can do it myself. Also, the 3RR rule refers to 3 reverts within a perieod of 24 hours, not broken in this case. My second edit wasn't a revert, but a combination of the two statements. My third edit was 2 days later. So, reporting me for edit warring is totally without merit. --Janke | Talk 21:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's a reference/citation, easily found via google : http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/lexicon.php?id=61 --Janke | Talk 21:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Above citation inserted in article. Satisfied, IsaacAA? ;-) --Janke | Talk 21:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

User-editable content is not a reliable source. IsaacAA (talk) 05:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Even if that is true, that statement of yours smells of WP:POINT. ;-) Re citations: This page on AWN (a site you cite yourself) isn't user editable: [[260]], it says: " .. TV series were in jerky cel animation on threes or fours .. ". Thus, I ask the admins not to allow User:IsaacAA to remove pertinent facts, be they referenced or not, and require him to re-insert the general statement he removed, i.e. "Animation for television is usually produced on tight budgets. In addition to the use of limited animation techniques, television animation may be shot on "threes", or even "fours", i.e. three or four frames per drawing. This translates to only eight or six drawings per second." . That's all, folks! --Janke | Talk 07:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Definitely not a 3RR violation, and since you're now discussing it, either protecting the page or blocking someone would be counterproductive. Please keep up the talking. Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

User:121.74.158.215 reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: Blocked)

Page: Raspberry Pi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 121.74.158.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [261] (01:21, 23 February 2013)

• 1st revert: [262] (20:40, 23 February 2013)
• 2nd revert: [263] (05:02, 24 February 2013)
• 3rd revert: [264] (05:41, 24 February 2013)
• 4th revert: [265] (14:43, 24 February 2013)
• (Arguable) 5th revert: [266] (14:44, 24 February 2013)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [267][268]

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

Comments:User:121.74.158.215 and User:121.74.137.8 are clearly the same editor. Page just came off of 2-month semi-protection for persistent sock puppetry.[270]

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. Clearly the same editor and same edits as the edit warring in December. Kuru (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Abuse continues[271] so I have requested semi-protection at WP:RFPP.[272] --Guy Macon (talk) 03:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Applesandapples reported by User:Pratanu.roy (Result: Blocked)

Page:2013 Shahbag protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:Applesandapples (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: # 24 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 540007354 by Freemesm (talk) The information is either already there further down or further up. Sourced repetition is still repetition")
• 2nd revert: # 24 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 540006273 by Freemesm (talk) there is no source here, so must be removed without discussion as per Wikipedia:BLP")
• 3rd revert: # 24 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 539982624 by Darkness Shines (talk) being mentioned in the news doesn't make it notable. It's pretty non-notable")

Three more relevant edits:

1. 24 February 2013 (edit summary: "unsourced and doesn't really belong in the intro anyway - the intro quite long")
2. 24 February 2013 (edit summary: "Intro is very long and repetitive - removed some information already mentioned in intro or mentioned further down, and moved tahrir square comparison down to relevant section")
3. 24 February 2013 (edit summary: "/* Verdicts */ I don't think an anonymous Facebook user's status is very encyclopedic")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [273]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [274]

Comments: The editor is systematically trying to vandalize the article, to divert the readers from the main topic or idea of the Shahbag Protests.
Pratanu.roy (talk) 05:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Pratanu.roy I have edit some of your formatting mistakes. Seems it is OK now. Please see the difference to fiend what was wrong.--Freemesm (talk) 06:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked this message. Thanks for the your assistance. Pratanu.roy (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I want to add few more points with Mr. Pratanu Roy. Applesandapples was also engaged in edit war in International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh) article, which was under 1rr restriction. WP:3RR rule states "...on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." So it seems he violates 1rr restriction. Here are his possible violation diff [275] [276] [277] [278]. About his 1rr violation I inform him here, but he don't care! Any one can fiend his motive in editing wiki from here. He is not interested in creating descent article rather then biasing them in Jamaat-e-islam point of view. After considering my allegation any admin should take action against him. For his edit warring I can't focus on improving the 2013 Shahbag Protest article. It is edited by hundreds of newbies how don't follow wiki rules. That's way I am trying to make this article descent. Thank you--Freemesm (talk) 08:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the case against me here is quite irrational. I want to make 3 points:

1. I do not think reaching 3RR and stopping there is usually a good idea, but I must point out that I did not exceed 3RR, and therefore this is not edit warring.

2. The reason I did 3 reverts is because I was reverted 3 times [279] [280] [281]. I restored my original edits, saying why I thought the reverts on them were unjustified. This is not a case of me being the aggressor - I was trying to neutralise the aggressiveness shown towards me.

3. And I completely stick by the 'three relevant edits' - I explained them in the edit summary, and discussed one on the talk page [282]. I think to anybody who is thinking clearly, it is obvious that these edits are not the work of a vandal. The intro is too long and some information was repeated, which is why I removed repeated information and moved other info down the article.

I am not systematically trying to vandalize anything, and am insulted by the smear. These editors seem to be outraged that I editing on their 'turf' - well, it is not their turf. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia which anyone can edit. Applesandapples (talk) 08:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Applesandapples is on 5RR from my count, not three.[283][284][285][286][287] Darkness Shines (talk) 10:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I believe the editors looking at this case should be careful in making a judgment. A&A has a different POV than all of the other editors going after him and he was being ganged up on. It's easy to revert a user when the majority are going after his edits and have reverts to pocket. Bad judgment on his part, yes. Awful tactics used against him by others, definitely. The accusers above are all involved in the dispute. I'm not. Bad behavior all around, most definitely! Crtew (talk) 13:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

To back this up, I offer the following evidence: WP histories show that User:Freemesm and User:Darkness Shines work together to reverse editors by using teamwork on contentious editing and this sometimes involves more editors. To back this up, I offer the histories at David Bergman (journalist) from this diff [288] to this diff [289], which was coordinated in advance at talk here Bergman (journalist) against me (until I finally realized what was happening and stopped editing) and their edit history at Mohammed Nizamul Huq from this [290] to here [291] which was sent to BLP at this BLP Discussion before it spilled into another dispute from [292] to [293] where the page was semi-protected for a period against User:Aminul802. The dispute against User:Aminul802 then went into sock puppetry, but was initially a content edit war.

In the present case, I would request editors use the following policy: "When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized." Please examine all the parties involved in the above dispute and not just User:Applesandapples. Crtew (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment:I can't understand whats wrong I've done by discussing with an experienced wikipedian? Did I do anything hiding others? Don't spread your bullshit claims everywhere. You have energizing every vandals and socks [294] [295] [296] [297] to fight against an experienced wikipedian DS. Does it support wiki policy? I don't think so!--Freemesm (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. With all of the accusations back and forth, I'm hesitant to comment, so all I will say at this point is Apples clearly breached WP:3RR, and no other editor did. In addition, for an inexperienced editor (based on an article edit count of 85 out of a total of 153), editing in such contentious articles is a significant - and usually unwarranted - risk. Far better to correct spelling errors in articles about puppies.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

User:‎70.171.255.160 reported by User:Kheider (Result: Semi)

Page: 99942 Apophis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 70.171.255.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: Vandalism only account
• 2nd revert: [diff]
• 3rd revert: [diff]
• 4th revert: [diff]

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

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

Comments:

• Result: Semiprotected two months. A variety of IPs are warring to insert the Billy Meier story about this asteroid. Billy is said to be in contact with extraterrestrials. EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Mieszko 8 reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: Blocks)

Page: Nicolaus Copernicus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mieszko 8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: all are blatant reverts.

• 1st revert: [298]
• 2nd revert: [299]
• 3rd revert: [300]
• 4th revert: [301]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Not done, sorry. Will do it now.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Nicolaus_Copernicus#Nationality

Comments:

• See-also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Astronomer28
• Although this is the continuation of an edit war, it would be nice if you could do your best to pick off individuals who are simply and blatantly edit warring against just a reflex lock-the-page-and-let-them-argue-it-out type approach.
• If anyone is familiar with the Gdansk stuff and cares to take an interest, please do. William M. Connolley (talk)

• I've left notes for both Astronomer28 and Mieszko 8 and encouraged them to respond here. This looks to be long-term warring by both parties and they are continuing in spite of feedback from other editors. Per WMC, blocks for both parties should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I've pointed out numerous times in Talk:Nicolaus_Copernicus that the NPOV does not correspond to the current version and have provided proof in reliable, published sources. No one has proven otherwise. Moreover, the current version is not the consensus as evidenced by user comments. My POV is the NPOV (in reliable, published sources) and is supported by many other users. Given that my edits are a better reflection of the NPOV than the current version, how is it that the current version is better than the one I've been proposing? The only argument I hear from William M. Connolley is "that's not the consensus here." Indeed, it's not, but nor is the current version. Astronomer28 (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• Here is a typical edit by Mieszko, altering the wording about Copernicus' nationality: The edit summary was "Undid revision 540107747 by Larkusix) (there is a clear evaluation of his nationality in Europe (see WKP in below listed languages), certainly apart from German; hence, no consensus possible, only a majority vote".
• So, according to Mieszko, as supported by Astronomer28,

1. A number of other Wikipedias describe him as Polish
2. Therefore "no consensus is possible, only a majority vote".

This reasoning pays no attention at all to the thousands of words of prior discussion about his nationality in Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus and its archives. Based on this quality of argument (citing other Wikipedias as gospel, and offering no deference to past discussions here on the English Wikipedia) I see no reason not to proceed with the blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• Result: 24 hours to Mieszko 8 and Astronomer28 for long-term edit warring about the nationality of Nicolaus Copernicus. Convincing other users that your edits are neutral is a challenging but worthwhile task. On a page with a long history of controversy like this one, you should be making an attempt to persuade others instead of just declaring you are right. Mieszko 8 has made no effort at all to use the Copernicus talk page. I'm also notifying both editors of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE since their edits appear to have a nationalist motivation. EdJohnston (talk) 06:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

A happening atSt. James Infirmary Blues‎

I am very close to being in a edit war with User: TheOldJacobite concerning the St. James Infirmary Blues‎ article. I posted that the song was used in a certain movie, s/he removed it as being not notable. I disagreed and would have discussed it with him (seems more like a guy than not) on his talk page, but seemed to be blocked from doing so. I reposted the section, adding a reference from IMDB that had the song in the movie. He undid that. It seems to me that being on a movie soundtrack is notable enough to be listed in the “also ran” section of the article, but me posting again and he removing again gets us to three reverts and who wants that? So here I am, what happens next? Is this the right page to post this? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I would open a discussion on the talk page of the article. Gamaliel (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Consider it done. Carptrash (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Multiple User and IPs reported by User:Dainomite (Result: No action)

Page: Special Forces (United States Army) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Dooleydragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
103.28.133.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
103.28.132.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [302]

In chronological order with oldest being on top:

• 1st addition by Dooleydragon: [303]
• revert by McChizzle: [304]
• 2nd addition by Dooleydragon: [305]
• revert by Dainomite: [306]
• addition (with forgetting "File:") by 103.28.133.5: [307]
• correction of IP edit by Dooleydragon: [308]
• revert by Dainomite: [309]
• addition by 103.28.133.5: [310]
• revert by Dainomite: [311]
• addition by 103.28.132.60: [312]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (both the IPs I was the only edit so there is no diff, just oldid, I hope that is okay.)

• 103.28.132.60's talk page: [313]
• 103.28.133.5's talk page: [314]
• Dooley Dragon's talk page: [315]

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

Comments:They just seem unresponsive but they keep adding in images that are not the Shoulder Sleeve Insignia (SSI) for the Special Forces unit. The Special Forces Tab and Ranger Tab are individual qualifications badges and are not part of the SSI. Both myself and McChizzle tried to convey that in our edit summaries while Dooley and the IPs left no such edit summaries nor did they respond to talk page messages. On top of that the image the 3 users keep adding in was uploaded by Dooley Dragon with the comment "Took a picture of my own patches and Photoshopped the image."[317]

This is my first ANEW so I hope I filled this thing out right. Thanks for your time, — -dainomite   06:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Result: No action. It is almost two days since the last revert. If this starts up again let me know on my talk page or file a reminder here at AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 03:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha, will do. Thank you, — -dainomite   04:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

User:GabeMc reported by User:Purplebackpack89 (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted (currently at his revision; this is the version before he started editing)

• 1st revert: diff
• 2nd revert: diff
• 3rd revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Discussion of the issue on my talk page: diffs

Comments:

Wikipedia:Vital articles is a project where articles should not be added or removed without consensus. User:GabeMc did just that. He is finally trying to get a consensus, but he insists on the live version staying up there being his (non-consented to) revision, and he accuses me of being obstructionist for trying to follow BRD. I didn't even bother reverting him the last time (which would be hard, because he also toyed with the alphabetization of the project) because he'd just revert me five seconds later with even more vitriol pbp 14:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Considering you only made one revert less than him, I don't think it's appropriate of you to report him on this. Considering you were also edit warring.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 15:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It is perfectly appropriate. He was making BOLD edits, I was reverting them. I am in the right, he is in the wrong. I am not the one edit-warring against consensus; and since I've only made two edits, I haven't hit 3RR yet pbp 16:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to make 3 reverts to be edit warring, you know. You were reverting him. You were too edit warring. You could also get blocked.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 16:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Actually you can edit war with as little as 1 edit. 3RR isn't a free pass to 3 reverts. That being said. In this situation I would see both users to be equally at issue here and warn both to stop and talk on the talk page before further situations like this arise. -DJSasso (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

How are we equally at issue? I've made one fewer edit, and I didn't edit against prior consensus... pbp 16:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually I do understand BRD. Its not BRDRD like is what you attempted to do. 2 edits or 3 edits they are still edit warring so both equally guilty of it. Both of you should stop and talk on the talk page. -DJSasso (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

And I would note the first edit of his doesn't appear to be a revert at all. It appears to be a good faith edit. -DJSasso (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Bullshit on it being a good-faith edit. It went against prior consensus pbp 17:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Consensus can change. A bold edit is not a revert. Please assume good faith. Specifically look at the sentence from the first link I have provided. "Editors may propose a consensus change by discussion or editing." -DJSasso (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but BRD says that if a bold edit is reverted, you can't just keep reverting it back. There's no evidence to suggest that consensus has changed, so my edits should hold. Dj, you should revert Gabe's edits until the discussion is over pbp 17:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

See also: meta:The Wrong Version Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

A joke page? Really? I don't understand why you guys are treating the first edit as if it didn't happen, and BRD as if it didn't exist. Also, note GabeMc's edit summaries...they're personal attacks! pbp 17:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Yup, a joke page. But, like most joke pages, there's a kernel of truth in it. The point is that admins don't decide which of the versions in an edit war is "right", we just act to stop the edit war. It doesn't matter that GabeMC made the first move nor that he has reverted once more than you; you're both edit-warring and that's that. So: cut it out and discuss. If he refuses to discuss, then that's a different issue, one that's not really for this board to resolve. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• This report is intentionally misleading. That first diff is not a revert. I reverted PBP twice (just as PBP did to me), not three times. PBP's 1st revert and PBP's 2nd revert. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• Also PBP, if every change to the list must be discussed first (as you seem to be saying), then why did you remove "hunting" without prior discussion? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Page needs some real historians to look at it - looks like a list someone in grade 6 would compile.Moxy (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• I know this doesn't relate to the edit-warring report itself, but I don't see how the page complies with WP:PRJ. It doesn't identify, either by prefix or by a box at the top, what it is. What is it, anyway?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

User:ERIDU-DREAMING reported by User:Cpiral (Result: 48h, warning)

Page: Neil Postman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ERIDU-DREAMING (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

• 1st revert: [318]
• 2nd revert: [319]
• 3rd revert: [320]

History page showing the activity

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:ERIDU-DREAMING#Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Neil Postman#Explain twenty-odd edits involving hundreds of words

Comments:
The discussion shows a small percentage of the issues I have with the edits made: removal of cited information, verifiability of the edits' changes to content's meaning (changes in meaning made to logic and relations), change of cited information, changing cited quotes into questionable paraphrasing, the list goes on.

This is my first attempt at using 3RR arbitration. I wrote an essay for the occasion. — CpiralCpiral 00:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Response

When I read a philosopher (and this usually means when I have read nearly all of their published books) I sometimes look at their Wikipedia entry to see if it is accurate or can be improved. This may involve re-writing the article (Ernst Cassirer) or substantially adding to the article (Michael Polanyi).

In the case of the Neil Postman article I discovered that somebody had made a good effort at supplying a summary of his books. Their information dump however was rather clunky in places, as is inevitable when trying to convey a large number of points, and so I made a number of minor changes to improve its clarity and flow.

These changes were minor but also fairly numerous (adding punctuation, moving the words in a sentence around, changing the order of the sentences) and Cpiral decided that he would revert every single change, every time, on the grounds that each and every change should be itemized and justified. He also reverted the changes I had made to the Michael Polanyi article - on the basis as far as I could see of absolutely no knowledge of Michael Polanyi.

The sole contribution of Cspiral was to revert every change. He did not amend and improve a particular change, or add any new information, he simply reverted each and every change, no matter how minor, on the grounds that each and every change should be justified.

It is remarkable that he felt that each and every change of mine, no matter how minor (and most were very minor) had to be reverted. At no point did he seek to add to the text himself, indeed he did not seem to have any knowledge of the topic. I therefore reversed his reversions and suggested he make a more positive contribution - becoming familiar with the authors at hand seems to be a good start.

If I am banned for improving the articles, based on familiarity with the authors, and Cspiral is to be commended for what is in effect repeating a lazy act of vandalism, on the basis (as far as I can see) of no interest or knowledge of the authors, then so be it. The loss is to Wikipedia. (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 11:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC))

P.S. Cspiral has now completely reverted my changes five times. Is he going for a record? (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 11:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC))

• Result: ERIDU-DREAMING is blocked 48 hours for long-term warring and Cpiral is warned. This is a two-party war but Cpiral has used the article talk page to explain his reasoning and ERIDU has not. I left ERIDU an explicit warning to discuss his changes on article talk but he did not do so. He kept right on reverting the article. ERIDU has been blocked for 3RR before. Criticizing the other party (as you do above) for not knowing the topic won't advance the discussion. Incorrect charges of vandalism work against your interests. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Yworo reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Warned)

Page: Charlize Theron (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 14:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

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

1. 16:23, 25 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 540242639 by NickCT (talk) undo blind revert which changed birthplace to "Kearny"")
2. 20:14, 25 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 540308124 by NickCT (talk) BLP issue, exempt from WP:3RR")
3. 00:22, 26 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 540397730 by Tom3605 (talk) WP:BLP issue, don't revert")
4. 00:49, 26 February 2013 (edit summary: "actually, they are used all the time, IP")

Outside the 24-hour period indicated above, there is also an earlier one:

• 04:38, 25 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 540193045 by 108.5.238.171 (talk) change to soured material")

• Note: edit-summaries reflect full awareness of 3RR, no warning required.
• Claim for BLP exemption to 3RR here is implausible: one might disagree that "South African-born American" is the right description in the lead, but it is manifestly not a "BLP violation" in the opinion of anyone but Yworo, and in fact the consensus on the talk page is that it is indeed appropriate. To believe it is a BLP violation, one would have to believe that this description would somehow offend Theron herself -- an odd notion, given that she has become a naturalized American citizen. (In fairness, he is only saying "BLP issue" -- but then it makes even less sense to say it is exempt from 3RR.) We can expect that Yworo will revert yet again -- and so a block is now warranted to prevent further edit-warring. Please note that I have not edited the article myself and that Yworo is reverting multiple editors there.

—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

One of the reverts was of an IP with regard to an internal comment in the BLP - dunno how much of a "revert" it counts as the issue of nationality is considered "contentious" in many places (vide Israeli/Palestinian citizenship) thus being a BLP issue, so I would be inclined to tell the editor to stay away from the article for a day as being sufficient. Collect (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC) BTW, "must notify at the top of this page does not mean "unless you do not think you need to notify". Collect (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Yworo has been warned that his reverts don't enjoy the BLP exception to 3RR. From the response on his talk page, it sounds like he gets the point. EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Zorglub reported by User:Cruks (Result: Submitter warned)

Page: Isabel dos Santos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zorglub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [321]
• 2nd revert: [322]
• 3rd revert: [323]
• 4th revert: [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [324]

Comments:

Zorglub is a strong supporter of the actual Angolan government. Any information about corruption in this article he is reverting and ignores independent references. The information provided here are proven as correct and is important for the people in Angola, especially children and pupils. I am scared that this will end in a a new edit war. So we need help from independent administrators now. Cruks (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Cruks warned. You are adding negative information about a BLP subject based on a poor source. It does not appear that club-k.net is a reliable source for the details about her lavish wedding. The Guardian says that she had 100 wedding guests not 1000, and says nothing about visas for the guests. I recommend that you remove club-k.net as a source and add the Guardian article if you wish. You could search for the Portuguese newspaper accounts of the wedding which are claimed to exist. There is quite a bit of well-sourced criticism of this person in reliable sources, many of which are already in the reference list and could be used to improve the article. EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: Unfortunately this gentleman, as seen here for what he said, has a political agenda and is a bad editor, because he want the articles to reflect their point of view. I have nothing pro, or against, the regime of Angola, I simply advocate neutrality and reliable references. He tries to impose by force their point of view, adding unreferenced controversial information, in this case, presenting as a reference, a recognized unreliable blog turned into pseudo-newspaper where the news are nothing more than lies, without any real foundation. I have already mentioned this situation to him numerous times, and challenged him several times to confirm the details of this "blog", with additional references, but he can not do that because the news are nothing more then lies and personal points of view, there are no references else where that prove the claims that are bound on the blog, as such, it is not reliable and can not be considered as a reference. Zorglub (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

If all the telling is lies, why does the Angolan governmemnt not shut down this website? You can see here, that its you who is wrong.Cruks (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

User:NCJM reported by User:Dougweller (Result: Warned)

Page: K. A. Paul (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 18:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

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

1. 20:49, 25 February 2013 (edit summary: "I have posted the accurate information owing that the previous information was incorrect")
2. 23:12, 25 February 2013 (edit summary: "I have posted the accurate information owing that the previous information was incorrect")
3. 08:07, 26 February 2013 (edit summary: "I have posted the accurate information owing that the previous information was incorrect")
4. 17:49, 26 February 2013 (edit summary: "I have posted the accurate information owing that the previous information was incorrect")

• Diff of warning: here

Tried to explain issues to editor on their talk page

Comments:

I tried to explain the issues to the editor on their talk page. The 4th set of edits simply adds material I removed, slightly rewording it. This was unsourced material in a BLP. Dougweller (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I've warned the editor that he may be blocked if he continues. Let's hope he is willing to respond. EdJohnston (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Editor warned. No reverts in last twelve hours. Since the pattern is so blatant, I imagine that if it continues there will be an immediate block. EdJohnston (talk) 06:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Twainmaned reported by User:Novangelis (Result: 36 h)

Page: Recurrent laryngeal nerve (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Twainmaned (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

after 71.246.118.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [325]

• 1st revert: [326]
• 2nd revert: [327]
• 3rd revert: [328]
• 4th revert: [329]

Editing to add:

• 5th revert: [330]
• 6th revert: [331]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [332]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page on my talk page: [333]

• 5th revert: [334]

Comments:

I also tried to explain why the Institute for Creation Research isn't a reliable source on a science article when the user posted on my talk page,[335] but the edits continued. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, if you're going to consider Dr. Jerry Bergman's well-sourced and academically cited article as an "unreliable source" because it appears on a page of the Institute of Creation Research, then you're going to have to edit or remove Richard Dawkin's atheist-pulp novella "The Greatest show on Earth" as the sourced argument for the Laryngeal's nerve trajectory as evolutionary evidence on the disputed page. --Twainmaned (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You've been reported here for edit-warring, and the fact that you really believe you're right isn't a justification for breaking the 3 revert rule. If you want to make a case about sources, the place to do it is the article's talk page. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Other than the first sentence, it's WP:COPYVIO, as well.Novangelis (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours De728631 (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Johncaron.ca reported by User:Shrike (Result: Warned under ARBPIA)

Page: Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Johncaron.ca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. 03:01, 26 February 2013 (edit summary: "The reasons for the expulsion are required early on otherwise it lacks a legitimate foundation for the basis of the article. Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)")
2. 16:09, 26 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 540475626 by Malik Shabazz (talk) Not a hypothesis. It's buried in the text.Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)")
3. 18:03, 26 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 540674093 by Shrike (talk) Reference added. Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Johncaron.ca&diff=prev&oldid=540712597

Comments:
The article is part of WP:ARBPIA and its under 1RR. The user clearly broken it.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• Result: User has been warned about the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA. They have not edited since 18:03 on 26 February. If they continue to revert the article, a block may be appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)