Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive162

Page: North America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 08OceanBeach SD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1] (Adding text about Mexico being part of Central America, forking the use of the term Middle America and putting it upfront)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]
A whole discussion was started last night at the talk page and there was consensus among editors. This morning user 08OceanBeach SD refused to recognize it and started edit warring. After his first revert, we were surprised he didn't respect consensus and was notified by user Karnifro that an agreement was reached [9]. He refused to respect the majority, and reverted and reverted.

User is well aware of 3RR as you can read here [10], where he uses it as a threat in a previous edit war started by him.

Comments:
It would be nice for an administrator to warn this user because of his incivility by not respecting consensus and previous agreements reached by editors at the article North America, because this is not the first time this happens. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 21:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: [11]

• 1st revert: [12]
• 2nd revert: [13]
• 3rd revert: [14]
• 4th revert: [15]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]

Comments:

User is adding incorrect terminology to the page and reverting my neutralization of a passage. BlueLotusLK (talk) 05:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

You too involved in Edit Warring and pushed your own agenda on a sensitive page like Alleged War Crime on Sri Lanka without any consensus on talk page.HudsonBreeze (talk) 05:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• talk | email
  ) 05:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: [17]

• 1st revert: [18]
• 2nd revert: [19]
• 3rd revert: [20]
• 4th revert: [21]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22]

Comments:

User does not understand what constitutes valid sources and is pushing a POV. BlueLotusLK (talk) 05:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The sources are enough to support the details on the "War Rape" on Sri Lanka context, but you haven't taken sufficient time to read, but want to revert.HudsonBreeze (talk) 05:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• talk | email
  ) 05:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Page: Three Cups of Tea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WhereTimeStandsStill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [23]
• 2nd revert: [24]
• 3rd revert: [25]
• 4th revert: [diff]

NOTE: While the editor did not revert a total of four times, his actions indicate to me that he is knowingly edit warring. Further, because of this addition to my talk page, [26] his actions also indicate he is possibly attempting to game the system.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27] Editor was warned. Warning has since been removed by editor.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28] User was also advised of policy regarding redlinks and warned not to edit war in edit summary made by me. User then proceeded to revert back again in edit warring fashion (and this time without an edit summary). His previous revert of the same stated, "if you want to create an article about David Relin, feel free to do so. Until then, piping should stay off".

Comments:

This user (who has edited as an IP and as

) 15:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

With this latest addition to my talk page (which he has been asked to stay off of previously) [29], I believe he has not only been

) 16:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I reverted twice. LHB1239 reverted the page three times today. Not sure why I am the one accused of reverting when he has reverted more tha me. The first "revert" shown was the original edit, and the next two entries were my actual reverts.

No attempts were made to resolve this on the talk page. LHB1239 didn't discuss the change until after I made the final edit and he decided to take me to the 3R noticeboard. He also did not provide a link on my tak page with the actual complaint. I had to get the automated response from the bot to see the issue. WhereTimeStandsStill (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• 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. -FASTILY ^(TALK)
  07:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

My intent in coming here was to report edit-warring behavior, not a violation of 3RR. Oh, well -- the behavior basically ceased, so I guess coming here was successful after all.

talk

) 22:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Page: Find Me (Sophia Montecarlo song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jamelia (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] (A courtesy informing the user that they were close to violating 3RR), [36] (The warning itself)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37] (Note on the user's talk)

Comments: 4th and 5th reverts are not necessarily related to 1-3, but show a pattern of refusing to work with other editors or understand policies.

Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 15:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Page: Breen (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Δ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [38]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [43]

Comments:
User:Δ claims that the image he keeps removing from the article does not have a fair-use rationale for that particular article. I have tried repeatedly to point out that this is false in my edit summaries [44][45], but as the aforementioned diffs of his reverts show, he simply ignores this, and repeats the same boilerplate warning over and over again in his edit summaries: "ll non-free files used on this page must have a valid and specific rationale for use on this page; please see Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline for more information; one or more files removed due to missing rationale FAQ". I tried to ask him for clarification on his talk page:

Is there some particular reason you cannot simply clarify what the problem is with a given image, and why instead, you simply say the same thing over and over again? Did you not see my edit summary, in which I stated that the photo has a rationale for article in question? If this is wrong on my part, why not respond to explain why? Why do you make no attempt at clear communication with image uploaders? Can't you see how this can be seen as non-collaborative, and possibly disruptive? Nightscream (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

And all he said in response was:

That is where you are wrong, it does not have a rationale for where it is being used on. --ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 20:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

As you can see from the image's page here, it indeed has a rationale, which is specifically indicated for the Breen article. Because of this, I naturally reverted his removal of the image from the Breen article twice, and as a result, User:Δ has warned me that I am "edit warring". Keep in mind that good-faith reversions of unambigous policy violations, such as removing content without a valid rationale on the part of users who refuse to discuss the matter with others is not a 3RR violation. By contrast, User:Δ's three-time reversion, which he has engaged in without responding clearly and openly to discussion, most certainly is, since his statement that the image lacks a rationale for that article is false.

Keep in mind that User:Δ has a habit of deleting images from articles without clear attempts to discuss the matte or respond to queries from uploaders, templating regulars (which many in the community feel is wrong), and has a history of being brought to ANI for the tendentious manner in which he approaches enforcing NFCC, which has included having edit restrictions imposed on him.

Another user stated: "SOmeone, after Delta's removal, your revert, and his rerevert, fixed the image to make it say "Breen (Star Trek)" correctly. the wikilink to the Breen article was outdated, due to a previous page move. I don't know if this is indeed User:Δ's rationale, since he refuses to speak. If so, he needs to be cautioned, not only about his 3RR violations, but because he refused to speak with clarity about the situation, and presumed to accuse someone else of 3RR, simply because the name of an article had changed, and made the wikilink in the rationale on the image's page out of date. Nightscream (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Just a few notes,
  WP:CIVIL and NAP directed at myself and others enforcing the NFCC. I think a good {{trout}} headed their way should solve this. ΔT _{^{The only constant}}
  21:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

One more time: Why did you not tell me, even when I asked, where the problem was? Those pages you linked to are filled with LOTS of different criteria for proper rationales. How am I supposed to know which criterion was wrong?

You are not exempt from edit warring if you refuse to speak to the other user. I tried to open a dialogue with you, and you repeatedly refused to give me a straight answer as to what was wrong with the rationale, and that's a fact, as shown by the article's edit history and my attempts at discussion on your talk page, where all you would say was "That is where you are wrong, it does not have a rationale for where it is being used on." You are clearly not interested in working with others on this project, preferring to self-righteously delete material so you can sit back and watch others scramble as they try to preserve their work. You have a history of this sort of behavior, and your edit warring with me over this is clearly motivated by a personal grudge over the previous matter with templating regulars. Nightscream (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps if you actually read them instead of saying TL;DR Wikipedia:Fixing_non-free_image_problems#LINKCORRECT is exactly what happened in your case. The street works both ways, if you refuse to read the information that I provide or fail to understand the problem ask, dont ingore the issue edit war and re-insert files against policy. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 21:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)While the image did technically have an invalid rationale, in that it linked to Breen instead of Breen (Star Trek), a much better solution would have been to just point the link to the right article, rather then remove the image from the article that would fit with the NFCC rationale. That said, given the NFCC exception to edit warring, given even without the exception there wasn't a 3rr violation here, and finally given that both sides now accept the inclusion of the image after the rationale was fixed, does any action really need to be taken here? Monty₈₄₅ 21:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• No violation At the time, the file unambiguously failed the NFCC, and so its removal was exempt from the 3RR anyway. Whether or not Delta could have been more responsive is another matter, but it is clear that his edit summary did provide all necessary information. As everyone is now happy with the result, there does not need to be any action taken here. J Milburn (talk) 23:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I think Delta has been guilty of edit-warring here. Reversion should be the last resort, not the first resort. At the bottom of this was something that was at most a technical failing -- linking to a dab page, rather than the actual use page. There was a clear failure to communicate that simple information to Nightscream here. Failing to communicate, and instead merely repeating and re-repeating removal with an unhelpfully unspecific generic edit-summary falls well short of the behaviour we expect here. We expect editors to act like human beings here, not automata. Even worse is the apparent belief, after the event, that because there was a technical failing in the rationale, this kind of unhelpful minimally-communicative behaviour is acceptable. Masem has previously suggested that Delta would benefit from a spell of being placed on 1RR for image work, to try to instill a habit of appropriately interactive discussion and communication that at the moment appears to be lacking. I can only see this most recent occurrence as adding further weight to the sense in that suggestion. Jheald (talk) 23:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

  It wasnt a failure to communicate, but rather a failure to understand on the part of Nightscream. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

  Jheald, by saying that there was no violation, I do not mean to say that the situation was handled perfectly- it probably wasn't. However, clearly, Delta did not break the 3RR. J Milburn (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

  3 reverts is not an entitlement. You don't have to break 3RR to be edit warring -- edit warring is a pattern of behaviour and an attitude.

  What worries me most here is that Delta still doesn't appear to perceive that there has been any problem. Jumping to re-revert may be necessary as a last resort for unquestioned breaches of NFCC in the face of clear and wilful inappropriate behaviour. Instead what we have here was an accidental technical breach by an editor of good standing and good faith who, given only Delta's unspecifically generic edit summary to go on, was (as Delta notes above) unable to understand what the problem was that Delta had picked up with the image. When that happens, it is not acceptable simply to reiterate the exact same automated terse, unhelpfully unspecific, utterly generic edit summary, like talking louder to a foreigner.

  The fact that Delta jumps straight to the path of reversion and confrontation, rather than communication, and thinks even in retrospect that that is perfectly appropriate behaviour, shows that there is an entrenched behavioural problem here. I don't know what the answer is; but I do think Masem's suggestion of a spell of 1RR parole, initially for a short fixed period, but then repeated and extended if necessary, may be a good one and may be worth some serious consideration. Jheald (talk) 07:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

  Delta was correct to remove the image, but on the second or third revert when the other editor clearly didn't understand the issue, it wouldn't have killed to write "the FUR is for Breen, not Breen (Star Trek) so needs to be adjusted"; linking to rules doesn't necessarily aid an editor in identifying the problem. Clearly no action should be taken against delta as there was no 3RR violation, but hopefully he will see he could have been a bit more helpful in this case which would have been in the best interests of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 09:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Jheald, Nightscream, Betty Logan: Delta removes an image with a long edit summary - the edit summary points to several policies/guidelines/essays. I am sorry, if I see someone remove something with a long edit-summary, then my first thought would be 'there is something wrong' - I could have a look, and if I did not understand or consider that everything is actually correct, I maybe would revert - then the same edit is performed again - I don't know about you guys, but to me that would be reason to consider the possibility that there actually is something wrong .. maybe that image does have a problem there, but I don't understand. What would I do .. go to the editor: 'I don't understand what you mean, what exactly is the problem?' Would I revert: NO, because maybe the other editor sees something I do not see. People, we are here looking at a problem which is under a foundation resolution - this is not just removing unsourced information (Nightscream: diff, [46] - all you are doing there is bringing pages in line with policy - your edit summary is similar to ∆'s - pointing to policies and guidelines, what, I would argue that ∆'s "All non-free files used on this page must have a valid and specific rationale for use on this page .." is more explaining the problem). Not understanding the problem with some edit is never a reason to edit war about it. Here there is, at the time of edit, a proper link to the article missing in the rationale, something that is relatively easy to fix (especially for an editor knowledgeable in the subject). Can we next time first ask ∆ (or other editors) what is the problem - we know that edit-summaries are not the best way of communicating, but repeatedly reverting an editor who tries to explain (and the problem is exactly "All non-free files used on this page must have a valid and specific rationale for use on this page" - it may be as minor as a typo, but most cases are less obvious than that) - do we really continuously have to assume that ∆ (or I, for that matter) is wrong in their removals, or can we also assume that maybe there is something wrong with the display of the image, and that maybe something needs fixing. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

As I, maybe cynically or sarcastically, remarked on my talkpage in a similar discussion:

I've got another one: diff .. how are we to know that the image contains

DSM

.. you've got me here. I am at a loss, obviously I get it all wrong (but these are not non-free logo's anyway, what am I rambling about?)).

- Yes, there are blatantly obvious mistakes sometimes, but often the mistakes are not that obvious - if an image get removed with "All non-free files used on this page must have a valid and specific rationale for use on this page" - then there may be something wrong like this, it is, often, obvious to 'you' (i.e., the editor knowledgeable on the subject), but not to us. Still - the rationale is not valid, a requirement per a Foundation Resolution. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• • • Just as a historical aside, note that Kat Walsh clarified here in August 2007 that the Foundation requires that a rationale has to *exist* if NFC is to be used (ie there has to be an acceptable reason for it, in general terms). It is not, she says, a Foundation requirement that the rationale be *written down*. That is a requirement that has been made by en-wiki, so something that both the substance and enforcement of are for the en-wiki to set the terms of. Jheald (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• This strikes me as something Delta could have avoided, as the image rationale pointed to a dab page, and the image was used on a page linked from that dab page, the error should have been obvious, and Delta would have found fixing it easier than engaging in this skirmish. That said, the image page is fixed, and the matter is now resolved, leaving no action necessary from this forum. As a general suggestion, time to close the book on this one, though I'm also suggesting Delta be slightly more proactive in fixing similar issues in the future. Courcelles 14:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Courcelles, this is not something that Delta could have avoided - Example: How was Delta to know that
    DSM. It may be obvious here (though, it might have been someone from Bregna .. I'm not knowledgeable on Star trek nor on Aeon Flux), it needs someone knowledgeable on the subject, otherwise mistakes will be made. And note, this has not been solved in 4 years since the beginning of the resolution - yet everyone thinks it is easy to solve. It is not. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C}
    15:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Responding to a point much earlier, IMHO, just pointing to an entire policy page as the justification to delete/revert is bogus, more so on a third time for the same deletion. (like saying "my reason for deletion is you should look through the whole policy and see if you can find something that you violated") IMHO such does not constitute communication of the reason for the deletion/reversion, doubly so on the third time. North8000 (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

North8000 - Delta states "one or more files removed due to missing rationale" - you don't even have to go to the policy to see what was wrong, there was a rationale missing. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Adding to this, North8000: "Revert unsourced addition re living person, also that (gay activist) material is not even mentioned in the person's article" - how is someone even to know in which policy to look (you did not notify the editor who inserted it, nor started a thread on the talkpage

- I am at a loss here)? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

(added later)Dirk, you apparently brought up that tangent (a reversion that I did) to imply that I am being inconsistent, so I must address it. This was an edit by an IP whose entire talk page history consists of one recent vandalism warning. To a living person's name (in an article on a city) they added (unsourced) that the living person is a gay activist. I went and searched the entire article on that person and there was no mention of such. So I reverted it (once) and left the above notice. I felt that that was enough to make it no-brainer obvious, and went above the call of duty regarding deliberation on the revert, but would have been and am happy to discuss it in more detail if poster felt otherwise. And your implication that I was wrong in not notifying the poster or starting a discussion in this case (on this one reversion) is not correct. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Dirk, looking at the image, it looked like this when it was uploaded. The rationale has not changed, to present, when someone fixed the dab link in the rationale template. When a FUR links to a dab page, and the image is used on one of the pages linked from the dab, it ought to be fairly simple for a patroller to figure the situation out. This was doubly simple in this case, given the description mentioned Star Trek. Courcelles 15:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Still, Courcelles, it would need research, and most cases are less obvious. You really expect that Delta spends minutes on each removal, figuring out on most that he can't solve it, while for all of the removals, someone knowledgeable can solve it in seconds? And if most are so simple, here is a list of the cases without rationale. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

@Courcelles; there's a presumption in the idea that NFCC patrollers should fix rationales to point to where an image is used that where the image is used is in (a) correct in its placement on that article and (b) the rationale is appropriate for that use. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's get back to the issues here. Nightscream reverted with the message: "Revert. There is indeed a rationale on the image's page." Given that Nightscream has given that as his understanding, it is appropriate for Delta to investigate, and explain to Nightscream why he may have been mistaken. That is the kind of collaborative, collegiate editing that is required, particularly of people who have taken on an "enforcement" mission. Happening (in this case) to be technically right on policy is not a substitute for communication; going straight to reverting (twice) with no new information given or attempt at engagement is not acceptable. It is edit-warring; it is damaging to the wiki and its community; and it is behaviour that needs to be changed -- which in my view will require some sort of sanction. Jheald (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• You're upset with Δ for not communicating to Nightscream why he was mistaken. It's been pointed out to you above that the edit summaries were explicit and detailed. Further, you take Δ to task for not doing something beyond edit summaries, yet don't take Nightscream to task for doing the exact same thing; he made no effort to communicate with Δ before his second revert. He just chose to continue the edit war. Collaborative, collegiate editing indeed. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • No. I take Delta to task because his second and third edit summaries contained no more detailed information than his first one; whereas Nightscream's second summary [47], which went in before Delta's third, was more detailed and did exactly pinpoint the reason for Nightscream's confusion. Jheald (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    • So Δ's edit summary pinpoints the exact problem and doesn't explain further. Nightscream's pinpoint the exact problem and doesn't explain further. Seems equal to me. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
      • No. Delta did not "pinpoint" the exact problem. The exact problem was that the image had a rationale, but due to page moves it now pointed to the wrong page. Delta did not "pinpoint" that, given Nightscream's clearly-expressed and honest confusion. Instead, Delta reverted giving no more information than before, adding nothing to the utterly generic "missing FUR" message he had already given. Delta preferred to revert rather than to communicate, and that is edit-warring. Jheald (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
        • You're trying to establish a difference between Nightscream's pattern of edits and Δ's. I'm not seeing it. Nightscream's second revert, while longer, expresses the same as the first. If you're wanting to censure Δ for edit warring here, I think you need to censure Nightscream as well. He's just as guilty of edit warring without further communication. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Closure / Resolution (or not)

Let's have a proper close here, from an uninvolved admin -- ie someone that isn't an active image patroller, and isn't even potentially going to be coloured by any conceiveable potential agenda and interpretation of NFC of their own.

J.Milburn is a fine editor and admin, but because he has a particularly clearly defined and agressive stance on NFC questions, he is not the best person to close this discussion, if that close is to be recognised as appropriate by all participants. Jheald (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

No violation since NFCC image reversions are exempt from the three-revert rule per

19:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

(

WP:USERNAME?). — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk]

23:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment): "There is no requirement that usernames be in English. Furthermore, contributors are welcome to use usernames that are not spelled using the Latin alphabet"_(Upol). You prefer, it be easier to type ?
Like yours ? -

powwow

03:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Page: Harvey Milk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Moni3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted][48]

• 1st revert: [49]
• 2nd revert: [50]
• 3rd revert: [51]
• 4th revert: [52]
• 5th revert: [53]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [55]

Comments:

This is my first time reporting, please forgive any errors I made have made in filling out this report. I made this report because I think the truth should not be covered up. I think Moni does not support Wikipedia's policy of neutrality.

Here's my reply to Moni3's criticism. My replies are in bold.: Jimjilin is attempting, I believe, to insert an irrelevant fact that Milk's partner at this point of his life was 16 years old and therefore slanting information to make it seem as if Milk was a pedophile. Slanting information?! How can the truth slant information! The source says Jack Galen McKinley was 16! The source is accepted elsewhere in the article. Was McKinley 16 - true or false? The source used for this does state that McKinley was 16 at the time he met Milk, but that McKinley had left his home in Kentucky or Tennessee, where his family was very religious, and was seeking out gay relationships in New York. Within the pages Jimjiln has cited for McKinley's age is a thorough explanation that McKinley left his home because he was gay and that he had come to New York "to suck cocks". Seriously, that's the opening line of the chapter. Milk met McKinley when McKinley was already involved with Milk's friend and theater producer Tom O'Horgan. Doesn't alter McKinley's age lol + * Harvey Milk is a Featured Article. No other partners Milk had have their ages included in the article because it's irrelevant. But their ages are discussed. Moreover the ages of other individuals: Dan White and Moscone, are mentioned. How can you possibly object to mentioning McKinley's age when including the ages of these other individuals has been considered acceptable?! No reliable biography on Milk has ever suggested he was a pedophile, including the one cited by Jimjilin. I urged Jimjilin to start a talk page thread to discuss this if he thinks the issue has merit, and he did, but then inserted the information into the article again. Then accused me of censoring the truth. This smacks of POV and UNDUE. Did you delete a fact supported by what has been considered an acceptable source, yes or no? How is that not censorship?Jimjilin (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected You're both engaging in an edit war. Something about this feels like a simple misunderstanding, and I've locked the page for a few days to let you slow down and talk, rather than hand out blocks. I'll tell you this, the discussion needs to be about the article content, not an insinuation that the other party has ulterior motives. Courcelles 14:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Page: User talk:Orangemarlin (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 120.18.224.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [56]
• 2nd revert: [57]
• 3rd revert: [58]
• 4th revert: [59]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [60]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: It's my talk page, and it's just vandalism. No discussion required.

Comments: Edit warring on other articles too.

• Page protected NW (Talk) 18:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%89owyn_%28band%29&oldid=436305634

• 1st revert: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%89owyn_%28band%29&action=historysubmit&diff=436351015&oldid=436305634
• 2nd revert: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%89owyn_%28band%29&action=historysubmit&diff=436597237&oldid=436593795
• 3rd revert: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%89owyn_%28band%29&action=historysubmit&diff=436598381&oldid=436598094
• 4th revert: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%89owyn_%28band%29&action=historysubmit&diff=436598753&oldid=436598469

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWalter_G%C3%B6rlitz&action=historysubmit&diff=436594527&oldid=436591855

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A%C3%89owyn_%28band%29&action=historysubmit&diff=436602239&oldid=436598193

Comments:

• Comment – There appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP} 01:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not a dispute, I am simply applying

WP:ELN. --Walter Görlitz (talk

) 01:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

ELNO policy is not an exception to the 3rr rule. Looks like User:Boffo is also in violation. Monty₈₄₅ 02:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

True. Also, the "warning" edit was made and then I made no further edits to the article, then other edit warring editor reported to avoid being reported here. Funny. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I put it back to before their reverting, so the dispute could be settled not while their edit sat as current. --Boffo (talk) 02:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked. Behavior was unacceptable on the part of all users, both who were aware of the edit warring rules and restrictions, and could have looked at policy at any time to decide whether continuing to edit was OK. I've kept the blocks relatively short in the spirit of allowing everyone to continue to come to an agreement after the blocks are over. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Page: Abortion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Str1977 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 14:46, 26 June 2011

Abortion (and related articles) are subject to 1RR (see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Abortion/Log), so this is actually a 1RR violation.

• 1st revert: 08:55, 27 June 2011
• 2nd revert: 11:41, 27 June 2011 (undoes immediately preceding edit)

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: 11:06, 27 June 2011, prior to 2nd revert. The 1RR is also referenced explicitly in the abortion page editnotice.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Extensive discussion at Talk:Abortion, to which Str1977 (talk · contribs) has not contributed in the past 10 days.

Comments:
This article is not in the calmest of states at present, with an epidemic of reverting without discussion, and so I think 1RR violations need to be handled firmly. MastCell ^Talk 17:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I may have also broken 1RR at some point today or yesterday. If the reviewing administrator determines that is the case and decides it would be appropriate to block me, then so be it. NW (Talk) 17:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not know of any 1RR restriction or even that such a thing existed in regard to articles (as opposed to editors). I suppose it is an innovation. And despite a link to a supposed "warning" no one informed me of such a rule which I would have been mindful of had I known about it.

I and others have actually contributed to discussions in the past and as late as last week. Though I couldn't do that right now due to time constraints, others have making the point I agree with. Discussions on talk do not warrant overturning the previous consensus which I merely restored. Also my last edits were not reverts but ultimately the response to the clarification tag I myself placed earlier (which was later simply removed by another editor). Str1977 ^(talk) 19:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the warning banner is hardly very informative, is it? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 08:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

•  No action - page has already been protected. Pardon my crass use of the English language, but this page is a bit of a clusterfuck at the moment, and blocking at this point will not help deter any future behavior or alleviate the current situation, in my judgment. Magog the Ogre (talk)

Page: Almanach de Gotha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dbpjmuf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [61]

• 1st revert: [62]
• 2nd revert: [63]
• 3rd revert: [64]
• 4th revert: [65]

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

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

Comments: Unblocked straight back to edit warring, even used a sockpuppet to edit while blocked beforeWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dbpjmuf/Archive - dwc lr (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 month -FASTILY ^(TALK) 16:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Page: Faster-than-light (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 188.29.16.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [66]

• 1st revert: [67]
• 2nd revert: [68]
• 3rd revert: [69]
• 4th revert: [70]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User has been repeatedly invited to bring discuss their edits on the talk page but keeps reverting

Comments:

--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Page: Faster-than-light (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 188.29.16.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a really clean case of an IP adding something, having it removed, and then just RVing it back in quickly after it is removed. Here is the pre page [72], edits since then have then just been cleanly adding and deleting this section.

• 1st revert: [73]
• 2nd revert: [74]
• 3rd revert: [75]
• 4th revert: [76]

I think I'm reporting problematic editing as much as a 3RR violation. These edits happen over more than one day, but they are the only edits and they come along with a refusal to discuss the page. The user is RVing within minutes or hours of the previous RV, which come from various editors. This is, in the mind of this IP an edit war, though the other editors appear to be relatively calm.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: nope. The user's talk page has a 3RR warning (placed by another user) and a suggestion to use the talk page from me.

Comments:
Dealing with this much paper work when an IP has an axe to grind is why I stopped editing Wikipedia a while ago, I have no idea why I just did all this. 0¹⁸ (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the duplicate report. 0¹⁸ (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Page: Saddleback Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Scottdude2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [78]

• 1st revert: [79]
• 2nd revert: [80]
• 3rd revert: [81]
• 4th revert: [82]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [83]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [84]

Comments:
Scottdude2000 is a somewhat new editor (almost all of his edits are within the last 24 hours) and he refuses to use the talk page for resolving the disputed long section he wishes to add to the article. Also - this material was the subject of a 3-month long arbitration in 2009, so it would be good to shut this down ASAP.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment)

™

21:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

well I've never used this section before so my defense will be somewhat shoddy. yes I'm new. I'm sorry. the short version is I cited my material. I did actually use the talk page and found agreement with the one of the two other editors and the one above me complaining never cited a reason for why to leave it out other than a similar verson of the story appeared in another article. furthermore. I only made two edits. one was a post ADDING the section that I added and when the second editor began work I allowed him to revise as he saw fit. I might be a little speedy but that's not a crime. Scottdude2000 (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The IP address isn't mine (it's not even in the same state, if the lookup is correct). As a long-time editor, I've been trying to get this new user to use the discussion page, to no avail, and this is all a rehash of the 3-month-long arbitration 2 years ago. And while he has engaged on the discussion page, he's continued the article reverts in tandem, rather than using the talk page for suggested changes.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I've removed the section rather than perform administrative function here, because the section is a blatant
  WP:COATRACK. Magog the Ogre (talk
  ) 22:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Marking as Declined The section both users were edit warring over has been removed. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Page: Private career college (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Kid keeps reverting my edits, so I keep reverting his edits. Ergo, Edit War, being reported herein. I'm 72 years old and have taught in the higher education system for 50 years this June, so I would know a LITTLE more about the subject than some kid who thinks he's All That.

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

As far as ``neutrality, the article is honking to be expanded and the article is honking to be linked to other articles.

As far as content, any reputable law journal lists hundreds and hundreds of cases against so-called career colleges, most of which result in being solved in favor of the student in one or more of the fashions listed herein.

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

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

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

Tried to explain to the kid that he needed to respect his elders and/or those with a firmer grasp of the topic than he.

Also reported it to the Wikipedia monitors without success, so now reporting it here.

This kid needs to mind his own business and quit interfering with those more knowledgeable than he.

Comments:

Assuming that

WP:NPA. If you can provide proper sources to back up your statements, and can behave in a civil manner, then maybe you'll earn our respect. AndyTheGrump (talk

) 02:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected Semi-protected by Causa sui ... which is the right action, but not really satisfactory. The content from 71.xxx is pure
  personal attacks are also unacceptable. On the other hand, now we have a one-sentence article that is little more than a dictionary definition. Inside Higher Ed might be a good place to look for sources. - 2/0 (cont.
  ) 15:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Page: J. Philippe Rushton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nam84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [85]

• 1st revert: [86]
• 2nd revert: [87]
• 3rd revert: [88]
• 4th revert: [89]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [90], logged ArbCom warning from MastCell [91] logged here [92]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [93]

Comments:
This is a newly created single-purpose account which has edit-warred on J. Philippe Rushton, repeatedly blanking sourced content. The edit warring has taken place over a longer period, but 3RR was broken only recently. Mathsci (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours - 2/0 (cont.) 16:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Page: Bernard Tomic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 89.164.223.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [94]

• 1st revert: [95]
• 2nd revert: [96]
• 3rd revert: [97]
• 4th revert: [98]

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

The problem is that the user refuses to participate on the talk page. See Talk:Bernard_Tomic#.22I_speak_Croatian._My_parents_have_a_Croatian_background.22_.2820.01.11_Interview.29, Talk:Bernard_Tomic#Mother.27s_name_is_Adisa.2C_which_is_a_Bosniak_name_for_females_-_Also.2C_Croatian_article_stating_that_Tomic_is_of_.22Croatian_and_Bosnian_roots.22 etc for discussions where others have attempted to resolve this situation.

Comments:

There has been an ongoing argument on this page for several days about Tomic's parents. It seems to have become a major bone of contention between the Croatians and Bosnians on this site. I'm neither - I got involved because I was trying to find out information about him. I thought there was a stable version of the intro, and then this IP appears and keeps going back to its preferred version while refusing to discuss on the talk page. I'm still very new to WP so forgive me if this isn't the right place or if I've made mistakes myself. As of now I'm giving up and handing it over to people who know more about policies. Absconded Northerner (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

And now (after someone else reverted), User:89.164.147.134 has stepped in to go back to the same version. Obviously I can't prove those are the same two people, but those IPs are very similar... Absconded Northerner (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Humanism&diff=436896390&oldid=436862314

• 1st revert: [100]
• 2nd revert: [101]
• 3rd revert: [102]
• Reporter Blocked – for a period of 24 hours FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Malformed – The report is formatted in a way that is unreadable by the automated processing system. Please ensure the report header and body follow the guidelines. Refer to the FAQ for more information. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 23:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Page: Debate on traditional and simplified Chinese characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 03:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: 05:06, 27 June 2011

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

1. 05:51, 29 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Pro-Traditional characters */ Restored. Since when did manufacturing electronics have to do with the debate.")
2. 05:55, 29 June 2011 (edit summary: "Restored section")
3. 05:57, 29 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Pro-Traditional characters */")
4. 05:59, 29 June 2011 (edit summary: "Just restored to June 27 edit")
5. 02:05, 30 June 2011 (edit summary: "Revert to 49k version")

Also see discussion page: Talk:Debate on traditional and simplified Chinese characters

Comments:
User has done this many times before, routinely reverts other's edits because user doesn't like or agree. User seems to think they own the article.

—Metal.lunchbox (talk) 03:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This user has no edit history in general, and especially no edit history in any China related topics either. He just showed up one day to wipe a highly political/cultural article clean. He specifically targeted deleting contents that didn't support the simplified character/communist party point of view. User Metal.lunchbox needs an IP check. I suspect he has multiple accounts, and certainly does not act like a new user. Benjwong (talk) 04:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I also openly gave him a chance to discuss any deletions he plans. But he has no desire to discuss. I suggested that the article is in debate form, that he should counter any arguments with source, instead of deleting what he doesn't like. Benjwong (talk) 04:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

my edits are well commented and I believe they speak for themselves in addition to my contributions to the talk page. Benjwong, My edit history is not relevant, I do not need credentials to edit wikipedia articles. Your accusations are baseless. I recommend you read W:AGFMetal.lunchbox (talk) 05:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• No violation A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert (see
  Mtking (talk
  ) 05:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Page: Hebron (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mr. Smartypants (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: [diff]

This article is governed by the 1RR.

• Result: Blocked one week for 1RR violation and
  tendentious editing. This comment, when combined with the short contribution history, suggests the account was newly created to push a POV at Hebron. It would not be a complete surprise if this is a sock of someone no longer free to edit. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 02:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Philly boy92

(Result: Semi)

Page:

)
User being reported: 67.142.166.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Second introductory paragraph reverted to [103]

• 1st revert: [104]
• 2nd revert: [105]
• 3rd revert: [106]

Comments:
User has been reverting questionable edits several times in the

) 01:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two weeks. IPs have been reverting the article without any participation on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Orangemarlin has violated the general sanctions that have been imposed on this article. [NB: Orangemarlin's talk page has been protected and reverted and thus I cannot leave this warning on his talk page. That is why the warning is being left here.] Orangemarlin has committed vandalism and is edit warring by reverting the lede to include language that does not enjoy consensus and has been rejected for years by the consensus of editors. The most recent reversion was 24 hours and 3 minutes after his last reversion. Such behavior is both tendentious editing and a violation of the 1RR rule that applies to this article ("subject to 1RR (1 revert per 24 hours per user per page)"). In addition, because on June 21 OrangeMarlin warned another editor that abortion articles are subject to the 1RR rule and is therefore aware of that 1RR rule, Orangemarlin has breached 1RR after knowing that the topic is subject to 1RR, and therfore Orangemarlin has violated the formal requirement to discuss any reversions made on pages in the topic on the abortion talk page. The following is an inclusive chronology of all editing done by OrangeMarlin to Abortion and to Talk:Abortion: OM1. Talk:Abortion 14:37, 23 June 2011 Asked a question to a poll response. OM2. Abortion 17:07, 26 June 2011 Removed "death" from lede and replaced with "viable". OM3. Talk:Abortion 20:47, 26 June 2011 Left comment that did not discuss his intent to change the lead. OM4. Talk:Abortion 01:54, 27 June 2011 Made housekeeping edit that did not discuss his intent to change the lead. OM5. Talk:Abortion 03:00, 27 June 2011 Made housekeeping edit that did not discuss his intent to change the lead. OM6. Abortion 17:10, 27 June 2011 Removed "death" from lede and replaced with "viable". OM7. Talk:Abortion 19:45, 27 June 2011 As of this date and time OrangeMarlin had left no comment about his edit to the lede. OM8. Talk:abortion 20:27, 27 June 2011 Only comment after editing lede was "Jesus fucking Christ, my left nutsack is a bit itchy" What is more, OrangeMarlin has been disruptive in this topic area by engaging in that same excessively uncivil personal attack ("My left nutsack knows more than you. Jesus fucking Christ, I have never attacked you personally, but have, in fact, ignored you commentary") against another editor. The special sanctions that apply the abortion article allow an administrator to impose actions for edit warring, personal attacks, excessive incivility, 1RR and not using the talk page when editing the article. Therefore I ask that an administrator impose extraordinary sanctions on User:Orangemarlin. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Orangemarlin's disruptive behavior actually resulted in the article being frozen.67.233.18.28 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC). Responses: The article was protected for....I don't know why, but admins tend to be careful. So last comment is really a personal attack. 1RR restriction not violated. One edit per 24 hour period was strictly followed. Two edits over a bunch of days is hardly a violation of either the letter or spirit of 1RR. Talk pages edits don't count. Rather lame of the IP to include them. I consider that a personal attack. We're done here. IP should be blocked for....wait for it....being an annoyance. Oh yeah, we don't block for annoyances. LOL. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Orangemarlin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) controversially reverted the lede sentence twice within 24 hours and 3 minutes. The edit did not enjoy consensus support. Both reversions were made with no discussion on the talk page from Orangmarlin that the change was being made. The chronology of the article and talk page verifies these assertions to be facts. Making controversial reverts within 24 hours and 3 minutes back to back is likely a vioaltion of 1RR. The abortion sanctions also require a user to discuss any edits, which Orangemarlin did not do. It is clear that Orangmarlin knew of the special 1RR sanctions because Orangmarlin warned another editor about them several days earlier. Orangemarlin also uses vulgar insulting language in making personal attacks and is by and large uncivil if another editor's diagreement is sensed. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC) 67.233.18.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) blocked 48 hours for disruption; he seems to be on a mission and did not learn from his first (short) block. People need some time off. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Comment Orange's 2nd revert of "death" 3 min past the cutoff for 1RR appears to be gaming the system. On any other article no big deal. But on this article, in the middle of discussion of this very topic, is extremely bad faith. It's hard to fathom a scenario where Orange would not be blocked. – Lionel (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Not really. The page was protected at the time this report was made. Typically, admins don't block for edit-warring after a page is already protected, because it would be purely punitive rather than preventive and thus against the blocking policy. MastCell Talk 03:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Yes, I sit around wasting my fucking time waiting for the time to expire. Good faith would assume that my hours of editing are structured. Lionel, you may apologize for your bogus and bullshit accusation on my page. I may accept it. I may delete it with all prejudice. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Orangemarlin - please apologize for speaking to another editor that way. Responding to an accusation of bad faith with a more blistering personal attack is unacceptable. That is two personal attacks I see of yours on this page (one is simply quoted above), and I don't care if they were "justified" (they weren't); incivility is not acceptable". Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC) I apologize. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 08:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Thanks . Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC) The IP is knowingly and deliberately defying consensus, and is an agenda account seeking to recast Wikipedia to suit his prejudices rather than working collaboratively. I took the view that what was needed to restore sanity was to give everyone else a break from this tendentious and argumentative individual. I think it will be appreciated by everyone seeking a genuinely collaborative resolution on the talk page. The alternative is to semiprotect the talk page (especially since there is a second IP with an apparently equally zealous mission) but I don't think that would be as good an outcome for the project; it is good to let genuinely new (as opposed to faux-new) editors ask about why we cover contentious topics as we do. The block does not preclude anyone from addressing Orangemarlin's behaviour should they so wish, it is solely a matter of controlling a forum-shopping disruptive editor. Guy (Help!) 13:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Nothing could be further from the truth. The IP is actually defending the consensus. Sure it has a "mission" but so have other that move to try to change that consensus. Criticizing only one side, seems pretty biased to me. Str1977 (talk) 07:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Concur with Str1977. Seems the IP was blocked for being an IP, which is not justice. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 07:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC) I can see at least one editor here treading on thin ice and it isn't the IP. Blocks are not to be issued as a cooling off period [[107]]. Let us address the IPs concerns. DMSBel (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC) Your case is rather weakened by the fact that most of those arguing the IP's case here appear to have been attracted to the dispute only by the IP's canvassing. Civil discussion proceeds on the talk page, the IP was not IMO part of it; strident advocacy is not a useful part of consensus building. Guy (Help! ) 17:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC) Guy, please point out the specific diffs upo which your block of the IP was based. What was uncivil? What was disruptive? Speficially? Apparently it is your view that posting "Jesus fucking christ my nutsack is itchy" followed by additional nutsack comment (as well as disruptive editing of the lede after ignoring the FAQ and the general sanctions on the abortion article) is in accord with civility and fair play? You are an extremely biased administrator with an agenda. IN your world, it is poor form to post WP:RS on the talk page when other editors keep pretending a fact has not been verified, and good form to disruptively edit the abortion lede while it is under discussion. You need to take a rest as you clearly are too persoanlly involved with this matter. 71.3.232.238 (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum. The block has been made and is now expired. Move on. --B (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted

• 1st revert: added cover version by Red Elvises
• 2nd revert: diff
• 3rd revert: You need to stop undoing my edits
• 4th revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [108]

Comments:
The user is also creating a coyright violation with his addition of a YouTube link (see

07:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours --slakr^\ talk / 15:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Page: Canon EOS 7D (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bradswanson2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 3RR warning by Island Monkey
• revert 1
• revert 2
• revert 3
• revert 4

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

• 3RR warning by Island Monkey
• revert 1
• revert 2
• revert 3
• revert 4
• revert 5

Comment: Both users were warned by Island Monkey before this started, there's some 'discussion' going on at User talk:Bradswanson2010#June 2011. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 19:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Bradswanson2010 and Landmonkey are each blocked 24 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This is done, if not overdone. Dreadstar ☥ 03:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Page: Wikipedia:Wikibombing (SEO) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Will Beback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to: [109] 1st revert: [110] (Following that revert a thread was started on the talk page to discuss the removed material.[111]) 2nd revert: [diff] 3rd revert: [diff] 4th revert: [diff] Cla68 has repeatedly accused Will Beback of edit warring on this essay.[112][113][114] Will Beback is filing this notice on behalf of Cla68 in order to get a determination of whether the accusation is correct.   Will Beback  talk  20:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC) If there's a determination that I did engage in revert warring at that essay then I'll apologize, undo my revert, and take a voluntary break from editing.   Will Beback  talk  20:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Comments: I counted, alas, five separate sets of WBB edits from 22:45 on 24 June to 11:16 on 25 June. Without parsing "what revert means", there was clearly too much Will on the article that day (12 edits in the five groups). Cheers. Will -- likely a rest from such edits would help you a great deal. Collect (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Parsing the meaning of "revert warring" is necessary since this concerns the very specific accusation of "revert warring".   Will Beback  talk  20:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC) You posed a question which I answered as best I could. If you intended the result to be a "unanimous automatic acquital", posting here is not the way to go <g>. Collect (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC) It seems like if I say "white" someone will show up to say "black", so I hardly expect unanimous agreement anywhere I go. But I'd hope that people who disagree with me could at least make accurate allegations instead of repeating false accusations.   Will Beback  talk  21:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC) OTOH, since I dealt with what you wrote, it is hard for me to believe you wrote "false accusations" about yourself <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC) I posted Cla68's allegation to see if it met the standards. It does not. It was a false accusation. Cla68 should know better then to spread serious charges about other editors without proof.   Will Beback  talk  00:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC) No. You posted a straw man argument and ascribed it to CLA68 -- he did not participate in this discussion, and to accuse him of a "false accusation" when he is not present is a tad unfair on your part. Moreover, you specifically addressed me with the "false accusation" accusation, as anyone reading this can easily see. Cheers. Next time. have Cla68 make an actual report, as there may be an inference that you wished to be exonerated, where no one has said here that your behaviour has been exemplary. Collect (talk) 10:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Not a straw man. Cla68 has repeatedly accused me of revert warring. I asked him to prove it or stop making the accusation. As can be seen here, I have not engaged in revert warring. My editing has been in full compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you have a specific complaint about my editing then please make it clearly, with evidence. Otherwise please don't make negative personal remarks.  Will Beback  talk  21:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC) It may not be a strawman, but this is certainly a Dreadstar ☥ 21:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC) How else should an editor deal with a false allegation of edit warring? The edit warring noticeboard seems like the right place to decide whether a violation has occurred.   Will Beback  talk  22:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Absolutely not here, your best bet was to take it AN/I. This was not the place; or did you not read the instructions on how this noticeboard was to be used and in what circumstances? Dreadstar ☥ 22:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC) You could also take it to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. GB fan (talk ) 22:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC) I will take it to WQA if it happens again. First, though, I wanted to get an objective opinion as to whether revert warring had occurred.   Will Beback  talk  23:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Obviously you don't get it, but this wasn't the place for you to do that. Dreadstar ☥ 02:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC) No need to shout. Actually, I think this was the right place. We can disagree.   Will Beback  talk  03:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 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. But, for your sake, it might be a good idea to lay low for awhile. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Thanks. I won't edit the page for a week.   Will Beback  talk  21:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Malformed – The report is misformatted, or does not contain the information required by the report template. Please edit the report and remove any <!-- --> tags and enter any missing data. Refer to the FAQ for more information. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 22:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Page: Jodi Lyn O'Keefe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 82.161.64.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 13:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 12:30, 2 July 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 434806008 by 83.79.80.173 (talk)")
2. 12:56, 2 July 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 437386015 by Camw (talk) This sites are here on Wiki for many years and the only websites that Jodi has, leave it that way")
3. 13:02, 2 July 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 437386979 by Camw (talk) who are you to decide that, it's there for many years, so what is your problem with your policy, takes your hands of stuff what was there already")
4. 13:07, 2 July 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 437387926 by Camw (talk) Go play idiot!")
5. 13:08, 2 July 2011 (edit summary: "/* External links */ No external links at all anymore, you happy now, asshole!")

• Diff of warning: here

—Camw (talk) 13:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BrendanFrye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Phospheros (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [115]

• 1st revert: [116] (by BrendenFrye)
• 2nd revert: [117] (by Phospheros)
• 3rd revert: [118] (by BrendenFrye)
• 4th revert: [119] (by Phospheros)
• 5th revert: [120] (by BrendenFrye)
• 6th revert: [121] (by Phospheros)
• 7th revert: [122] (by BrendenFrye)
• 8th revert: [123] (by Phospheros)
• 9th revert: [124] (by BrendenFrye)
• 10th revert: [125] (by Phospheros)
• 11th revert: [126] (by BrendenFrye)
• 12th revert: [127] (by Phospheros)
• 13th revert: [128] (by BrendenFrye)
• 14th revert: [129] (by Phospheros)
• 15th revert: [130] (by BrendenFrye)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [131] (for Phonspheros) [132] (for BrendenFrye)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts#Adding fights to records months in advance (Wikilink to the full discussion which has resulted in this edit war.)

Comments:

A discussion about an aspect of MMA fighter articles has resulted in an edit war of the MMA Wikiproject's main page. This morning when I saw that the edit war had escalated to violations of the 3RR I warned both parties involved. Following the warning, BrendenFrye has again reverted the page. I have requested temporary full page protection of the Wikiproject page [133]. Also filing the report here in case someone wants to step in further. --TreyGeek (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• BrendenFrye Blocked – for a period of 24 hours -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Page:

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

Diffs, explanations, and supporting editor comments are posted on the article Talk page.

Comments:
The editor is focused on this article and biographies about persons related to the case. Nor is that editor concerned with

) 18:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Declined User has not edited since 3RR warning. Re-report them if they make another revert. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone. Answered in detail on the discussion page where Wikiwatcher1 started a thread. I can't see why he didn't wait for my response before going to AnI. here is my response:

Regarding Wikiwatcher1's edits their merits as copy vary very widely from literate to frankly not at all. I have no idea why that should be but I and other editors often do him the courtesy of copy-editing his material to an acceptable standard and do we not behave like dicks pointing this out. When I do it I meticulously preserve his content. I'll copy below an example of mine discussed above, where the defects went beyond just issues of copy. First Wikiwatcher1's copy:

• However, on June 30, 2011, there were reports that the case against Strauss-Kahn was in jeopardy due to the prosecution team's having uncovered "major holes in the credibility" of his accuser. According to the New York Times, "prosecutors do not believe much of what the accuser has told them . . . [and she] has repeatedly lied about the circumstances or about herself." (a reference here) As a result, a special hearing was scheduled for July 1st, the following day, to reconsider Strauss-Kahn's bail conditions.

where 1 "there were reports" is weasel 2 "in jeopardy" is loaded and appears nowhere in the article (although it is in the URL title) 3 "major holes in the credibility" is sourced in the article to 'investigators' and not the prosecution team 4 "... has repeatedly lied about the circumstances or about herself" is not actually a quote from the article ...

and then my edit of it (in turn churned by BBb23 because it was too close a paraphrase of the sources)

• On June 30, the New York Times reported that the case against Strauss-Kahn was on the verge of collapse as investigators had uncovered major holes in the credibility of the housekeeper. The report said that prosecutors no longer believed much of what the housekeeper had told them about the circumstances or about herself and quoted a law enforcement official as saying she had lied repeatedly.(a corrected reference here) As a result, a special hearing was scheduled for July 1st, the following day, to reconsider Strauss-Kahn's bail conditions.

Note that there were significant issues, as there often are with Wikiwatcher1 (he hardly ever bothers to conform to the requirements of

WP:QUOTE

) and that my edit meticuluosly preserved his content.

Regarding his efforts yesterday he was trying to restore an ancient edit of his valorising DSK's performance at IMF which had long been replaced by brief content noting the new IMF manager. The other edits were undue weight remarks about the housekeeper's credibility and reverted first by AtG and then me. Certainly the content would required copy-editing for grammar but as it happened it didn't need it as it simply was undue weight.

I can't speak for AtG, who indeed is often impatient with me, but you can safely assume my remarks about grammar were an irony from someone who has had to waste a great deal of time on WW1's naive advocacy of DSK.

Indeed I don't expect to be here for much longer. I shall be curious to see how you cope with it (because of course he won't relent).

AS for WW1's principled asservations about edit warring, I find that droll. His talk page is a catalogue of warnings about edit-warring and he knows his fellow editors will not long tolerate repeats. FightingMac (talk)

Regarding Wikiwatcher1 , a glance at his talk reveals a catlaogue of warnings for edit-warring, Twinkle abuse and BLP violations. Rgearding the DSK affair article it was a fork created by him to valorise DSK and his abuse includes (but is not confined to) newby biting, | major blanking of content, | BLP violation, | restoring latter after BLPN consensus to delete, and | libel. He has lately taken to redacting all my criticisms of him (which I agree can be pretty up-front in line with

WP:CRUSH

recommendations)on the grounds they are personal attacks, despite observations on his Talk page from other users (i.e. not me) that some of these at any rate cannnot in any way be considered personal attacks.

My own experiences of trying to maintain neutrality in this article is documented on my talk pages here.

It's strange that Wikiwatcher1 opens up an ANI incident on this matter when he knows I intend to stop contributing to the article (I want to devote my time now to

French Socialist Party presidential primary, 2011

where I am a major, but not the originating, contributor). It might be a good time for a concerned administrator to consider Wikiwatcher1's record on this article. I suggest Wikiwatcher1 is banned from editing it. As for the article it strikes me as pointless newsiness while the DSK process is ongoing and I would like to see it deleted and an article not started until the trial is completed. It was put up for deletion early in its building and I voted for its deletion then. It so happens that practically every sentence in it presently was either contributed by me or at least edited by me, although user Bbb23, who I support, has made increasing contributions in recent weeks.

Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was referring to User:10Lskil. Forgot to mention that. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

@ Fastily. There was no 3RR warning pertinent to this notice. What are you referring to with your "decline?" Nor was a block requested, so some clarification of your conclusions would be appreciated.--

talk

) 19:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Page: Alice Walker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.210.160.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [134]

• 1st revert: [135]
• 2nd revert: [136]
• 3rd revert: [137]
• 4th revert: [138]
• 5th revert: [139]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [140]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [141]

Comments: I'm not really part of the revert war, but I thought it should be brought to admin attention. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 23:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• RFPP know if the page needs semi-protection. - 2/0 (cont.
  ) 09:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Page: Khiddirpur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kailashgupta180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is an edit-warring report, not 3RR. User:Kailashgupta180 is the page creator of Khiddirpur, and, as such, provided much of the information on the page. However, since at least October 2010, the user has attempted to add xyr e-mail address (see [142] for first example; looking at the page history, I count 9 more such additions), or a link to xyr userpage (first example I see is from November 2010, [143], most recent is yesterday [144]). User was warned on November 19 [145], November 26 [146], and after repeating on December 7, was blocked for 24 hours.

Note that in the same time period, user was also creating an inappropriate page about xyrself (that was speedily deleted several times), and using xyr userpage in a manner inconsistent with

. Xe was blocked again on January 10 for one week for creating inappripriate article, promotion of own user page.

From January until June, there was only 1 instance of the same inappropriate behavior, but, in June and July, continued the same behavior of edit warring to add a link to xyr userpage on Khiddirpur. Note that user has never once responded to any comments made on xyr talk page about any of these issues. At this point, I think that only a long, or possibly indefinite block for edit-warring can prevent disruption to the encyclopedia in the form of self-promotion. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Result: 1 month for disruptive editing. This editor has been signing his name on article pages, adding links to his user page in article space and ignoring all feedback. He has never responded to any of the complaints left on his talk. In fact, during the year he has been on Wikipedia he has never left a talk message. He has been blocked twice before on the same issue. Any admin may lift this block if they are convinced that the editor understands Wikipedia policy and is willing to follow it in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Page: Zvonko Bušić (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.191.31.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [147]

• 1st revert: [148]
• 2nd revert: [149]
• 3rd revert: [150]
• 4th revert: [151]

Diff of edit warring: [152]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [153]

--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• My work on this article is transparent, scholastic, and productive. Edit war has always two or more parties involved in it. To 'prove' their attitudes they 'supported' it by removing reliable scholar references (Encyclopedia of world crime: criminal justice, criminology, and law enforcement, Volume 1, Jay Robert Nash (editor), CrimeBooks, 1990, page 560). Please, measure knowledge, intentions, and collaborations of the other parties involved in this edit war and most notably of
  Off2riorob. I seriously suspect that behind of these two accounts is the same person--71.191.31.183 (talk
  ) 18:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• The thing is , to focus on your own contributions and not to put out on the other. Your were notified and discussed and warned mor e than once and given a 3RR warning note and yet you chose to revert again, why did you do that after the notes and warnings?
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 19:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
  • To admin: In addition, pay attention to behavior of
    Off2riorob who was blocked seventeen times for his/her un-collaborative work on Wikipedia. For details, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AOff2riorob --71.191.31.183 (talk
    ) 19:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Although its irrelevent to this report. - I have been blocked eleven times. - In the last two years I have been blocked four times,- one for asking a user a improper question on an editors userpage, blocked 31hours. One for 24 hours and reduced on agreement and two rescinded as mistaken - all of which is actually irrelevant in this issue which is about your contributions.
      Off2riorob (talk
      ) 19:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I have been here over two and a half years, you have been here with your single focus less than a month. This diff and edit summary from
      Off2riorob (talk
      ) 19:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Result: 72 hours for 3RR violation and
  WP:BLPN. Editors on all sides of this dispute are advised to be cautious. Court documents are primary sources and the opinions of secondary sources should be preferred whenever they are available. The IP seems to be here only to edit war on nationalist hot-button articles related to Yugoslavia. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 20:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Page: Mammal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BtVSFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 173.26.170.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [154]

• 1st revert: [155]
• 2nd revert: [156]
• 3rd revert: [157]
• 4th revert: [158]
• 5th revert: [159] by IP with no prior history

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [160]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [161]

Comments:

The user, who is apparently a sock-puppet of a vandal (see, for example, this edit [162]) is repeatedly posting an unlicensed image of himself pasted into a long-standing file on a prominent article. I request the user be blocked indefinitely. 00:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs)

All my edits have been in good faith, I'm trying to improve the article by removing a controversial, non-neutral image of Nixon and replacing it with a picture of some person. This fellow has more of an interest in protecting an image he created than the neutrality of the "Mammal" article. I request that he be blocked indefinitely, for breaking the 3 Reversion Rule. I would also like to point out how childish it is to bring up an old vandalism. Wikipedia follows the philosophy that users can change their stripes, as I have done. --BtVSFan (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

See also Corbon (talk · contribs), who made this lovely edit. Not sure quite what is going on here, but the edit warring and sockpuppetry need to stop. Ucucha 00:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Result: BtVSFan blocked 48 hours. The IP blocked for a week. Corbon blocked indef for vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 00:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: PM800 (talk · contribs)

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

• 1st revert: [163]
• 2nd revert: [164]
• 3rd revert: [165]
• 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [166]

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

Comments:

This user has gone up to "their third revert" but they've been blocked in the past for 3RR and I really am tired of edit warring, I have no interest in doing another revert to see if they revert me again with still no discussion. I'd rather a third party step in at this point than keep this nonsense up. I am trying to remove challenged content from the article (under

), as I explain in my edit summaries... PM800 is just using the default "undo" message to revert me, with no explanation ever given.

I should point out this user did a similar thing to me on several occasions last year, not giving an explanation and really not making a lot of sense with what edits of mine they reverted, for example: [167], [168]. As far as I can recall they've never explained any of these reverts. I have tried to talk to them on their talk page and in edit summaries both then and now, before bringing this issue here. --74.138.214.5 (talk) 22:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not looking to get PM800 blocked. I just want them to stop reverting me for no stated reason... I am not vandalizing the article and I shouldn't be treated like I am. If PM800 wants that line in the article they need to defend it. --74.138.214.5 (talk) 18:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week -FASTILY^>Fireworks!< 23:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: [169]

• 1st revert: [170]
• 2nd revert: [171]
• 3rd revert: [172]
• 4th revert: [173]
• 5th revert: [174]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [175] and[176]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [177]

Comments:For the last month, Piculo has become a

on the 28th June. On that occasion, I gave them a pass in the hope that they would discuss changes and seek consensus.

Comments by Piculo:

I did respect the NPOV, there is not any opinion about the human rights. I did extend the page with verifiable information adding two references.

• Last modification [178]

--Piculo (talk) 11:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours FASTILY^>Fireworks!< 23:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [179]

• 1st revert: [180]
• 2nd revert: [181]
• 3rd revert: [182]
• 4th revert: [183]
• 5th revert: [184]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [185]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [186]

Comments:

The fifth revert is a week after the fourth (which were all in the same day). AIRcorn (talk) 12:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours -FASTILY^>Fireworks!< 23:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [187]

• 1st revert: [188]
• 2nd revert: [189]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [190]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Comments:

18:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Shabazz is simply lawyering, here: Someone deleted the line, giving actual, valid reasons: Lack of references, and a word he felt PoV. I added two references, and replaced the word, with a more NPoV one. Then Shabazz comes along and reverts it with a completely unrelated objection, that it was supposedly fringe. I restored it, pointing out that nobody disputes the fact in question. Because the other reversion was a completely unrelated objection, and was fixed, this is a single reversion. If not, then anyone could censor any idea he did not like, simply by reverting with a different objection the second time, valid or no. --Kaz (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should brush up on the meaning of "revert": "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, I only undid your work, whether in whole or part, one time. It would be ridiculous for this to apply to completely unrelated objections by completely unrelated users. Surely you're not claiming to be Frederico1234...--Kaz (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It occurs to me, just passing by this out of chance, that the first time the information was removed, it should perhaps have been flagged with the relevant notices, such as {{

19:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The article is covered by discretionary sanctions. Edits like this i.e. the first time the information was removed, are consistent with the sanctions. Editors who want to edit in a topic area covered by the sanctions shouldn't be surprised to see material deleted when they don't cite a reliable source for "for contentious or disputed assertions". Sean.hoyland - talk 20:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not denying that, it's abundantly clear that that is why the removal was so sudden. My point is simply that there's an odd situation created wherein the page is governed in such a way as to create more opportunities for edits which would be considered reverts whilst simultaneously allowing for less. The very nature of why the page is given to the 1RR standard also encourages swift removal instead of slower vetting of content, so I (personally) would be very very slightly more lenient concerning edits like the first diff wherein content removed for a stated reason is reinstated with said reason resolved—had it simply just be reinstated as it stood before, obviously it would be a clear violation. GRAPPLE X 20:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose the first diff isn't really edit warring but I guess what he probably should have done per

WP:BRD was start a discussion to hammer the content out on the talk page. I probably violate the 1RR rule all over the place without even noticing so I probably shouldn't be commenting... Sean.hoyland - talk

21:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that, had Frederic objected again, or Shabazz objected about the same thing Frederic had, discussion would have been the obvious next step, especially considering the extreme nature of the edit restrictions for "all things concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" (of which I was unaware, but I probably would have moved to discussion if the same issue had remained unresolved, anyway), but Shabazz' objection was obviously a completely unrelated one. If someone adds a paragraph, and ten people revert it for ten different reasons -- truly different, each dealing with a different sentence and a completely different concept -- surely the original editor shouldn't have to treat them as all part of the same issue. If one guy wants references, another guy wants different grammar, another doesn't like a specific word, et cetera, it's not the original editor's fault if they keep reverting the whole thing. --Kaz (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Warned. The repeated additions of similar material constitute a violation of
  WP:FRINGE. It is still up to the consensus of editors whether the thesis of Edwin Black's book is important enough to include in the the Palestine article. Any further reverts before consensus is found may lead to a block. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 00:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

User:SudoGhost

(Result: 1 month)

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

Previous version reverted to: Cannot provide diff, has been revdel'd due to copyvio issues

• 1st revert: Revdel'd (Editing as IP 189.73.252.190)
• 2nd revert: [Revdel'd] Edit at 5:24
• 3rd revert: [191]
• 4th revert: [192]
• 5th revert: [193]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Boleto has a discussion about this, as well as the user's talk page and at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Edit_War.

Comments:
User has been inserting text that is a copyright violation of [195], (example "The individual or corporate entity that issues the boleto and whose account will be credited." appears in both the article and the source), and continues to insert the material despite being warned in

.

• Result: 1 month. Continued to restore copyrighted material after a final warning. He was blocked a week for the same thing on the same article in mid-June. EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Page: Tourism in Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

)

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

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

There is a 1/rr in the topic area. There is a warning at the top of the page when editing so the editor has no excuse. I ignored the 1/rr violation and gave him a heads up but he decided to revert again.

I am requesting notification of ARBPIA and an admin giving him suggestions that are friendlier than I am willing to give. I will be reverting with a talk page discussion being opened but it is really not necessary since the edit looks to only be to make a point and he has already been willing to remove sourced info from another article.[199] Just to be clear: I am not assuming good faith with this new editor.

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours FASTILY^>Fireworks!< 03:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [207]

• 1st revert: [208]
• 2nd revert: [209]
• 3rd revert: [210]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[212]

Comments: This is a strikingly lame dispute, and rather than trying to force a 3RR violation I'll bring it here directly.

) 01:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• 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. Can't block without a 3RR violation of some sort. Sorry, FASTILY^>Fireworks!<
  03:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Not to put too fine a point on it, but: Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring with or without 3RR being breached. Isn't the fact that the editor rejects the majority sentiment and declares "I won't be silent, or compliant, in the face of deletion" enough to get some scrutiny after he repeatedly adds back such disputed content without any valid backing from policy or guideline?Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• Reality check: for all concerned, my statement, "I won't be silent, or compliant, in the face of deletion of sourced content" simply meant that I will be
  WP:BOLD, and won't simply let deletions of reliably sourced content go by without on-policy response by me. As an editor in good standing, my edit history shows that I'm consistently on-policy to the best of my ability and knowledge (see even old discussion conclusion
  ). There was, and is, no declared intention of any kind to edit war.
• Intentions: I look forward to the opinions of several additional editors about the cheese paragraph. Of course, as the number of editors in discussion increases, it gets easier for me to both participate in and agree with ultimate consensus. I will abide by the larger consensus of an RfC. If an accommodation can be reached before the RfC, so much the better.

--Lexein (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Page:

)

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

Time reported: 00:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 05:44, 29 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 436750737 by Jac16888 (talk)")
2. 09:39, 5 July 2011 (edit summary: "/* 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup */ update")
3. 09:50, 5 July 2011 (edit summary: "File:Womens' World Cup Dresden 2011 USA vs North Korea Stadium 3.jpg")
4. 23:16, 5 July 2011 (edit summary: "update")
5. 23:18, 5 July 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 437957335 by Jac16888 (talk)")
6. 23:19, 5 July 2011 (edit summary: "/* 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup */ ;")
7. 00:06, 6 July 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 437960507 by Jac16888 (talk)")

• Diffs of warning: here and here

User is repeatedly adding unhelpful and unwanted information to Glücksgas Stadium, has been asked several times to stop and never responded in any way, and has been blocked once already for this just a couple of days ago —Jac16888 ^Talk 00:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Page: UEFA Euro 2012 qualifying (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ring Cinema (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [216]

Continuation of old edit war:

• 1st revert: [217]
• 2nd revert: [218]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[220]

Comments:

This user was recently blocked for 24h for edit warring [221], doing the exact same revert 5 times in 24h (and several times before that). He has now done the same revert twice today already, continues to claim that his position is correct because the votes are 4-3 in his favor, even though being told about

) 15:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

OpenFuture and two other editors are in the minority on this issue. There was a long discussion about making the change they requested and they failed to get a consensus. I have asked for their explanation for violating consensus policies and they continue to claim they have a consensus. In fact, four editors have taken the contrary position to theirs, so they are violating policy on proceeding according to consensus. I have requested protection for the page and I hope that will prevent any further vandalism from this group. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Ring Cinema was blocked by SarekOfVulcan for 72 hours. Kuru (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Page: Tin Pei Ling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: 202.156.13.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 202.156.13.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 218.186.16.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [222]

• 1st revert: [223]
• 2nd revert: [224]
• 3rd revert: [225]
• 4th revert: [226]
• 5th revert: [227]

I am unable to warn the user explicitly because of the use of IP-hopping, but I have repeatedly pleaded with the user to merge in his or her desired changes; however the user insists on reverting everything, including constructive bot fixes. I have invited the user to use different forms of consensus-building, and I have offered to voluntarily revert myself on certain sections if the editor would identify the disputed sections. However, the editor rejects everything even though I have tried different ways of phrasing, and different sources, and tried making concessions and compromises.

I am an involved administrator seeking advice from another administrator on an appropriate course of action. In the past, previous people have advised to rangeblock the editor, but the editor merely skips to a different IP. I have decided to further refrain from using the tools and thus need help. I am frustrated from the lack of attention on this matter.

The user is an IP-jumper and has a past history on various noticeboards. The most recent is talk:Tin Pei Ling, also see discussion on a 3rd party User talk:Strange Passerby. In the past, this user has strong evidence of being an astroturfing editor; but the evidence is more complex.

Comments:

Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 19:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Malformed – The report is formatted in a way that is unreadable by the automated processing system. Please ensure the report header and body follow the guidelines. Refer to theFAQ for more information. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk)19:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Um, the situation is kind of complex, I can't use the traditional format. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 19:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected For future reference, this kind of report belongs at
  WP:ANI. -FASTILY ^(TALK)
  22:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Page: Adam Spencer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: {{userlinks|Libstar}

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

• 1st revert: [diff=438144939]
• 2nd revert: [diff=438151031]
• 3rd revert: [diff=438150111]
• 4th revert: [diff=438151031]

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

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

Comments: Attempted to resolve. No response from user. Two additional sock-puppet accounts showed up, and also reverted the same changes in an effort to avoid an edit war block.

I did not make 4 reversions as required by

WP:3RR. + Shades2 resulted to attacks to warn me[228]. LibStar (talk

) 02:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the
  Mtking (talk
  ) 02:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Page: Adam Spencer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Shades2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [229]
• 2nd revert: [230]
• 3rd revert: [231]
• 4th revert: [232]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [233]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [234]

Comments:

Despite attempt to warn for potential violation of 3RR and a separate warning for attacking me, user continued to revert to 4th revision. LibStar (talk) 02:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours for edit-warring and POV-pushing. CIreland (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Page: List of Jiggy McCue books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Δ (talk · contribs)

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

• [235] (remove non-free content overuse) Revision as of 00:49, 5 July 2011
• [236] (remove non-free content overuse) Revision as of 17:44, 5 July 2011
• [237] (remove non-free content overuse) Revision as of 14:58, 6 July 2011
• [238] (remove non-free content overuse) Revision as of 15:05, 6 July 2011
  • In particular, not that this was a reversion of Rcsprinter123's edit of 15:04, 6 July 2011 that had edit summary "it needs the book covers - the policy doesn't cover that." He reverts twice more without communicating with this editor, I beleive that this constitutes a violation of his editting restrictions as well as violating the policy.
• [239] (remove non-free content overuse) Latest revision as of 15:50, 6 July 2011

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] No diffs, linking to restrictions instead: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2#Community-imposed_restrictions

"It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section," [emphasis mine].

Had I seen this last week I would have blocked myself without hesitation, but I;ve unfortunately become involved enough in this that I can no longer do so. I'll be cross-posting this to ANI and request for enforcement. -

) 23:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The first diff provided is not a reversion.
  User:MayhemMario, reverted without an edit summary. Both users made no attempts to communicate before/after their reversions unless Delta warned them on their talk pages. Eagles 24/7(C)
  00:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Ahhh, and? Five - one = four, four > three? One /= three? How is that helpful at all, User:Eagles247? I'll not comment further on this, but I don't understand what it is you're trying to say. -
    Aaron Brenneman (talk
    ) 00:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I was just correcting you, since it appears you cannot use the preview button efficiently or use edit summaries civilly. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
      • I don't see how that is related. Prodego ^talk 01:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Or even valid; Complaining about civility violations where a user cursed themselves out seems a little besides the point... Everyone's getting grumpy right now, it's a good time to not point grumpy at anyone (including yourself), but especially not at others. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment Actually a number of them.

• At this point NFCC has obliquely referred to, at best. I don't see the common "NFCC enforcement is immune to 3RR/EW coming into play.
• Yes, this is an edit war and in all honesty should have stopped and gone to discussion at the second reversal of the bold removal. But then those reverting the bold removals should have pointed to taking the dispute to the talk page.
• WP:OVERUSE
  is a nice primer, but as an essay it does not provide an end if edits based on it are challenged as is the case here.
• WP:NFLISTS
  leaves room for inclusion of infobox images in articles like this. As a guideline a discussion on the article's talk page would be warranted.
• 8
  are clear about in and of themselves. And each image as used does not breach them. The sticking point is does the over all use step beyond a guideline derived from policy. Again, something to hash out on the article's talk page.
• Even stepping past that, the FURs for the images need to be updated as it seems they were moved due to a merge.

- J Greb (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment This looks like a violation to me. Reading through the

) 01:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This seems to be an extension of an ongoing conflict between Messrs Delta and Brenneman. Brenneman has been a source of criticism against Delta across several bulletin boards for several days. Since Delta has not been blocked or otherwise sanctioned at any other board, this seems like a
  WP:BOOMERANG sort of result, with situations such as stalking and harassment arising. You will all note that I am hardly a defender or supporter of Delta, I am a frequent critic of his, but digging out things like this, in the midst of a huge dramafest surrounding Delta at other message boards, just stinks. I would say it would be best to let the issues at the other boards work themselves out, and not try to "sneak one by" in this manner. --Jayron32
  01:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

One would think that an editor so currently mired in controversy as Beta might try to avoid actions which land them onto every noticeboard available. But no, here we have a concrete case where edit-warring seems apparent. Do you feel the reversions were justified by written (or unwritten) policy? Or put another way, if I can get myself discussed at WP:ANI, does that leave me free to edit war elsewhere? I've got a whole list of updates, let me dig that out... Franamax (talk)

(ec) The suggestion of "stalking and harassment" is ridiculous, and I suggest you strike it unless you can provide evidence for it. Delta is under sanctions related to his past conduct regarding the NFC issue, and is also, yes, the subject of an overly long discussion about his current conduct regarding the NFC issue. That would seem to suggest he should be more careful about not breaking 3RR on flimsy pretexts, not that he can break it with impunity. No-one went "digging" to find this latest ugbreach of 3RR, I merely mentioned the issue briefly at the ANI sub-page when I saw Delta threatening to block an editor as part of his method of getting his own way in this edit war over an NFC issue. --

talk

) 01:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No, Delta is not exempt from these problems. Its just that the matter surrounding this report seems to stink to me. I'm with you guys. I want Delta to stop edit warring, I want him to stop harrassing new users over the rather impossible-to-navigate NFCC policies, I want him to be more helpful and less obnoxious in his enforcement thereof. Still, it bothers me when I see this stuff spill all over the place. I don't see that we need to have a case here where both Delta and Mr. Brenneman cannot both be at fault for being problems here. We aren't here to decide that, because Delta is eventually blocked for 3RR violations that Mr. Brenneman's forumshopping should somehow be seen as kosher. I'd rather we kept everything in one place. I want Delta to stop too. --Jayron32 01:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• The 3RR exemption language is "Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC)." Which means, if there's serious debate over whether this version of the article is NFCC-compliant, then Δ violated 3RR. It looks unquestionably non-complaint to me, and apparently it did to Δ as well. But if other editors familiar with NFCC have a good faith belief that it is compliant, then it's no longer unquestionable. So: does anyone believethis version is compliant?28bytes (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Its about as clear cut as you can get, per item NFC is not allowed in lists. The normal is 1 or 2 group images. There has never been a OK for a file per item in a list. Feel free to read up on those discussions, and take a read though
    WP:OVERUSE even though it is classified as a essay it is a very good summary of policy. ΔT _{^{The only constant}}
    02:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
    • 28bytes, the situation is that Franamax, J Greb, and myself (and perhaps other people) are indeed questioning whether that version violates the non-free content policy. So no, it doesn't unquestionably violate it. So it is not a 3RR exemption. And my other concern is that Delta seems totally happy to defend his having broken 3RR on this, which presumably implies he will be happy to do so again. --
      talk
      ) 02:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
      • If you follow NFCC at all you will know that this is a text book violation. Take a look at
        WP:OVERUSE#Q: Including one image for each character on a "List of ..." type article IS minimal use; it's one image per character! this is the exact same thing. These types of crystal clear violations of NFCC are exempt from 3RR. ΔT _{^{The only constant}}
        02:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
        • For what it's worth, the images are not a violation of the NFCC policy. Delta's link is a controversial essay on the subject, and essays do not empower edit wars. The images arguably run afoul (and arguably do not) of the guideline section
          WP:NFLISTS #6, an illustrative example of images to be avoided containing advisory (not mandatory) language that non-free images used "to visually identify elements in the article" should be used "sparingly", that editors should "consider" limiting them, and that issues should be "agreed to by editor consensus" (which would seem to preclude edit warring and 3RR exceptions). By the very text of the guideline, this is not a black & white issue or a 3RR exception. It may indeed be the case that there is a consensus not captured in the guideline that articles of this type should not have images of this type. Alternately it may be the case that there is a consensus that these images should be kept. Either way, edit warring past 3RR while issuing block threats is abusive and counterproductive. - Wikidemon (talk
          ) 02:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Demiurge1000: It's one thing to say you're "questioning whether that version violates the non-free content policy." But if no one's willing to stand up and say, "yes, that version is compliant", and point to something in the policies, guidelines, or precedents that backs that up, then it's not realistic to expect Δ or anyone else to think that there's a serious debate about the compliance of these types of uses. 28bytes (talk) 02:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Citing police would moot this. The policy (NFCC) does not cover it.
          If you can point to something that is clearlycontrary to strong consensus (a guideline like NFLIST) you would have a good case for an open and closed discussion for removal, but a talk page discussion is still called for. This isn't a clear case since both sides could make valid arguments for the inclusion.
          Citing an essay, something at least 2 degrees removed from the policy, does not justify point blank removal. It does not shield or justify edit warring. It is a place to start a discusion on the article's talk page with "Based on the reasons listed here (pointing to the essay), I believe the use of the images here doesn't reach the criteria to meet NFCC policy."
          Bottom line: This is not a clear NFCC violation. Your actions are not shields. Would you be willing to engage in a discussion on the articles talk page or continue edit warring? - J Greb (talk) 02:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
          • These fail
            WP:NFCC#8 they are not required to understand the topic. Both of those are grounds for removal. Ive been down this road countless times, this is a clear violation. ΔT _{^{The only constant}}
            02:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
            • I would argue the opposite, that use of visual icons to identify and designate things is a requirement for understanding them. There are entire industries and schools of thought devoted to that premise, and that is what signs, logos, and cover art are all about. The guideline page has a section devoted to identification images, and the guideline is presumptively policy compliant. It says that use in lists is okay but ought to be minimized and discussed... 3RR violation is not discussion. -Wikidemon (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
              • You have been proven wrong time and again. just take a look the comments atWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand_2011#3RR_violation ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
                • I hardly think a misreading of the text of the guideline page by you and a couple long-term supporters counts as being "proven wrong". If you don't think images serve to identify subjects, best take that up with the appropriate scientific and scholarly sources, that's not something that can be proven on Wikipedia talk pages. The guideline says this is a consensus matter and that multiple image use for identification purposes on lists is okay but needs to be discussed. What part of that permits edit warring? - Wikidemon (talk) 03:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
          • (edit conflict) @28bytes: Bluntly: No one was given the chance since it devolved into an edit war. Policy is mute on exact numbers for images used in a single article. The most relevant guideline allows latitude and also lack exact number. The closes parallel -discographies IIUC - assumes sub-articles using the images to make use in the core list redundant. Unfortunately I've yet to see a similar consensus pointed to re: book series list especially one that is the resut of mass merging. What is being used is a singular, codified interpretation of how the guideline should be applied.
            Uless the essay has been upgraded to be part of NFCC (don't see that ATM), there is no shield from edit warring here and all parties involved on the article should have moved over to the talk page after the second revert of Δ's bold removals. It would have been good to see where that ended as a precedent or start for a guideline for like book lists. - J Greb (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
            • Why would an "exact number" be needed for obvious violations of the minimal use component of the NFCC policy? A non-free image for each and every book mentioned in the article is the textbook definition of a minimal use violation, wouldn't you agree?28bytes (talk) 03:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
            • (
              WP:OVERUSE, an essay. That essay is an interpretation of the NFCC criteria, but NOT official policy or guideline. If it was a universally agreed to interpretation it would have been moved up to guideline or policy. That there are numerous people here disputing your interpretation of NFCC3 and 8 and pointing out that OVERUSE is merely an essay is ipso facto proof that this is not an indisputable NFCC violation. The problem here is, has been, and remains that you are substituting your own judgement and interpretation for community consensus policy, and violating both actual policy (3RR, and to the degree you overinterpret it beyond consensus, NFCC) and your particular edit restrictions. Those restrictions were carefully crafted to impress upon you, again, after you had been previously blocked dozens of times, multiply indefinitely blocked, that you need to operate within community consensus policy. And yet are back here doing it again. An essay is not an exemption criterion for 3RR. Georgewilliamherbert (talk
              ) 02:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
              • Responding most specifically to the assertion about the other noticeboard - there is only a 50:50 support for your interpretation of the NFCC and essay on the subpage. That is, again, not unambiguous consensus that it's a NFCC policy supported reversion, and therefore fails as a 3RR exception. You keep asserting that everyone agrees with your interpretations and that the complaints all don't count, but it's almost by definition self-contradictory to assert that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
                • George, are you saying you believe this version of the article is NFCC compliant? 28bytes(talk) 03:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:NFCC. Stop forum shopping and drop it, Ive had this same discussion countless time and I have been proven correct each time. ΔT _{^{The only constant}}

03:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Obviously this isn't leading to a block and there is defence against 3RR for NFC disputes, I just wish beta would just use a script to list the disputed images at FFD and let a consensus take its best shot at it rather then revert warring over specific images. It would reduce the drama level considerably. Closing this now.
  Spartaz ^Humbug!
  03:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • excellent, I guess beta/delt has temporary license to do whatever he wants. . .bad close. Though I'm sure no admin wants the crap that would rain down if they actually enforced the 3RR rule here. R. Baley (talk) 03:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a strange result. There is an obvious violation here, although I don't think it's actionable with a block. "There is a defense" is not an excuse to edit war. If Beta does it again, we'll have another vio and another report. -Wikidemon (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

To quote from the 3RR policy:

• Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violatesthe non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider reporting to the Wikipedia:Non-free content review noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

As I stated above, and in a talk page message to Spartaz, the existence of the dispute over validity of the NFCC interpretationby definition invalidates the 3RR exception relied upon here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Δ says the version of the article he found was not NFCC compliant. There's only a "dispute" if someone takes the contrary position. I'll ask again: do you believe this version of the article is NFCC compliant? 28bytes(talk) 03:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The previous version of the article was NFCC compliant, whether or not it was a good version. The editors edit-warring against Beta obviously thought so too. Even if you disagreed with the previous version of the article Beta's image deletions were neither necessary, helpful, nor advisable. Suppose somebody obviously misplaces a period and in doing so violates

WP:MOS. You're not justified in edit warring against them no matter how clear your position is. The 3RR exceptions are for very limited circumstances, not a blanket license to edit war against content you think is wrong. - Wikidemon (talk

) 03:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. To spell it out explicitly (although this has been several times already) if these were split out into stubs (which they could be, although I'm a merge-ist and wouldn't like it) then they could each have an image. That article at that time was compliant. And, without looking through history since this whole thing is really a drag, why does it say "no vio" at the top now?-

Aaron Brenneman (talk

) 03:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I actually believe that one editor believing that it's not a NFCC violation is not in itself a disqualifier. That interpretation would come close to suicide by individual holdouts against consensus. However, something like half the admins who review believing that it's not, or at least not a unquestionably closed case that it does, is a disqualifier for the exception. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Dumb question - if each book had its own article, nobody would question each article having an infobox containing the image of the book. Why then, when this article is essentially just a merged version of these hypothetical separate articles, and it contains sections within that article about each book, and each section contains the same infobox, is it not legitimate to have an image? I'm all for removing fair use galleries, but I don't understand how this is fair use overuse. --B (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• FWIW, the articles were all separate at one point, but I nominated a few for deletion and the author immediately merged everything into one article and closed the AfDs himself. Eagles'24/7' (C) 03:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Most of the time these list articles cannot stand on their own. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • B, I have that question too, except mine's on Pokemon images and not book covers. The community chose to merge Pokemon articles into a list and removed majority of the Pokemon images except a few main Pokemon characters that can have its own article (e.g. Pikachu). But essentially, this "book cover" issue has large ramifications and can apply to a lot of other non-related items (e.g. movie posters, computer software's logo name, game screenshots, etc.) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

That was my own impression too on first reviewing the article versions. I'll resist 28bytes' (I think) enticement to express an opinion and thus become involved in a dispute. Nothing I read in NFLISTS jumps out as "unquestionable" violation. These are physical books, which articles were merged. Not the same thing as List of MechBot tanks-type gratuitous illustrations, actual real book covers. The topic seems worthy of discussion, even if it's for the umpteenth time. I'm disturbed at this "no vio" close, not even a warning... Franamax (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• I am disturbed that the closer is willing to enable edit warring by Delta in this way. That Delta's understanding of NFLISTS is not unquestionably true should have been clear to him after he lost his recent similar edit war at
  battleground over it). —Kusma (t·c
  ) 06:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

User:WalkerHerbertBush reported by User:Heironymous Rowe (Result: Blocked)

Page: Frontier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

)

Previous version reverted to: [240]

• 1st revert: [241]
• 2nd revert: [242]
• 3rd revert: [243]
• 4th revert: [244]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Frontier/Archives/2012#Davy Crockett

Comments:

User is involved in several edit wars at present, this is not the only one(

User talk:WalkerHerbertBush#July 2011). They also just came off a 24 hr ‎Arbitration enforcement: 1RR violation at Tourism in Israel on block another article[245]. I advised in edit summaries to take this issue to the talk page, which they did not. They finally responded at talk, and again reverted to their preferred version, which includes unreferenced material irrelevant to the article itself. They so far refuse to add any sort of cite to their prefered addition. I am at 3rr myself and am backing away from the issue. The user is a relatively new account, who seems to know their way around pretty well, and was citing 3rr when blocked for the 1rr noted above. I suspect sockpouppetry, but am AGFing at this point because I have no clue whose sock they could be. Heiro

05:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Ugh. While I've not been involved in the indicated edit war, I've been watching it. User has been warned a number of times for edit warring, is just coming off a block for same, and has received other warnings (including from me) for libelous BLP violations and personal attacks. Not good. The socking suspicion appears well-founded as well. All-in-all, appears to be a vandal-only account, oblivious to its multiple warnings from multiple editors, and deserving of a deep freeze.--Epeefleche(talk) 06:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • They also seem to involved in an edit war here [246] at Flag football against several editors, for which they have been warned at their talk. I too suspect a vandal only acct, garden variety trolling mebbe Heiro 06:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of indefinite FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Night_of_the_Big_Wind reported by User:ClaudioSantos

(Result: Page Protected)

Page: Jack Kevorkian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

)

Previous version reverted to: [247]

• 1st revert: [248]
• 2nd revert: [249]
• 3rd revert: [250]

Must be noticed that a

User:Night_of_the_Big_Wind

instead of answer my questions and warnings continuosly restores the editions made by that vandal.

The vandal evading his permanente block also added an infobox pushing his POV non-encyclopedic contents, as for example mentioning an "euthanasia medicine" as an alleged "specialism" for the medical profession of Kevorkian and taking out any reference to his trial and sentence because of murder.

User:Night_of_the_Big_Wind

also insists to restore this POV infobox added by a vandal evading his permanent block.

Actually

User:Night_of_the_Big_Wind also insists in restore the comments made by the vandal in the talk page of the article, despite of my warnings[251][252][253]

.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [254]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [255]

Comments:

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but you let the version introduced by the vandal evading his block[256]. That vandalic edition triggered the warring. May I suggest to restore the article to the version immediately before the irruption of the vandal, it means to restore the following version: [257] -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

User:99.10.160.187 reported by Chaosdruid (talk) (Result: warned)

Page: Chinese Indonesians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 99.10.160.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 01:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

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

1. 23:18, 7 July 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 438235201 by Gunkarta (talk)")
2. 23:26, 7 July 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 438321769 by Δ (talk)")
3. 23:33, 7 July 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 438322440 by Δ (talk) Inaccurate information edited, lack of reliable sources, edited back to may 2011 revision")
4. 00:26, 8 July 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 438328028 by Merbabu (talk)Inaccurate information edited, lack of reliable sources, edited back to may 2011 revision")

• Diff of warning: here

—Chaosdruid (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Warned User appears to have stopped after the 3rr warning. Feel free to update if he resumes. --slakr^\ talk / 05:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Night of the Big Wind

(Result: protected)

Page: Jack Kevorkian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ClaudioSantos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) It is a nice way of distracting the administrators of the real case: editwarring and POV-pushing of ClaudioSantos. If have asked him to stop editwarring here. I have never got a warning on my personal talkpage or on the talkpage of the article. Normally I ignore enit-comments, as I do not regard them as real discussion.

The works of ClaudioSantos:

Reverts on Jack Kevorkian

1. [258]
2. [259]
3. [260]
4. [261]
5. [262]

Reverts on the talkpage of Jack Kevorkian

1. [263]
2. [264]
3. [265]

Editing in my edits at the talkpage of Jack Kevorkian

1. [266]
2. [267]

We have had clashes before, due to his persitent POV-pushing against euthanesia and everything related. I have reported him earlier at Wikiquette alerts but due to his habit of near monthly visits, this case bleeded to death.

His effort in "prosecuting" sockpuppeteers is alright, but also a bit remarkable. ClaudioSantos has also used a sockpuppet for POV-pushing and block-evading ([268])

Ow, and Claudio is already three times blocked for editwarring. ([269])

I wish the administrator on duty much wisdom in solving this case!

talk

) 21:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Santis is now moving his attention to

talk

) 23:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Moving to what??[270]

Response from ClaudioSantos

My revertions were legitimate revertions as I was reverting and deleting editions considered vandalism because they were editions made by

User:Night_of_the_Big_Wind

is a way to circumvent the block of that expulsed vandal, a sort of vandalism and should be stopped by an admin.

1. I'm starting to believe that

harassing me

and it is becoming difficult to assume good faith.

1b.

User:Night_of_the_Big_Wind irrumped just to mention a case that happened more than one year ago with my old account, for which I've lost my password, but that admins found that I have never used to fake or to deceive or to evade any block

.

2. Now he is again here mentioning that closed SPI case and accusing me of evading a block that I have never evaded.

3.

User:Night_of_the_Big_Wind also promptly mentioned here my blocks because 3RR. But what he omits to mention is that certainly two of the three blocks I have received because of edit warring, they were the result of reverting the editions made by the sockpuppets of the same mentioned expulsed vandal. For example see the history ([276][277]) of the editions made by the mentioned expulsed sockpuppets TickleMeister and OzOke, before the dates (29.12.2010 and 3.5.2011

) of my blocks because of 3RR .

4. Actually the expulsed vandal, that certainly I have reverted more than 3 times, for which I have got those blocks, that vandal was using more than 5 sockpupets to evade his block as it was confirmed here[278]!!!.

5. Those are the terrible blocks mentioned here by

User:Night_of_the_Big_Wind

in order to induce a bad environement against me.

6. But here the case is, as it was documented above, that:

User:Night_of_the_Big_Wind is continuously restoring the editions added few day ago by the same expulsed vandal now using the sockpuppet User:Jabbsworth. Thus restoring the editions made few days ago by the same expulsed vandal evading again his permanent block[279][280]. Will I get another block because of reverting a proven vandal who was already expulsed again

?

7. Therefore, my revertions were legitimate revertions as I was reverting editions considered vandalism because they were editions made by that sockpuppet evading his block, and I expresively tagged my editions mentioning that[281][282] once that sockpuppet was blocked.

8.

User:Night_of_the_Big_Wind

knows that but it seems he aligns with the vandal and against me because the vandal is pro-euthanasia like him.

9. But the doing of

User:Night_of_the_Big_Wind, who is restoring editions made by a vandal evading his block, is a way to circumvent that block, a sort of vandalism and should be stopped by an admin. -- ClaudioSantos (talk

) 00:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I do my own edits. If I want to sign my name under an edit that was originally from a sockpuppet, it will become my edit. I know you want those edits removed, because it does not suit your starch anti-euthanesia Point Of View. And keep your personal attacks at home, please.

talk

) 13:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Result. Response from admin

• Page protected by another admin. Next time, please try to use the template provided in the directions when submitting reports on this noticeboard so that your request can be handled expediently. --slakr^\ talk / 05:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Koorja reported by User:Mattinbgn (Result: 2 weeks)

Page:

talk | history | links | watch | logs

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

Edit warring over use of terms "Football" and "Soccer". More than one article involved

Previous version reverted to: [283]

• 1st revert: [284]
• 2nd revert: [285]
• 3rd revert: [286]
• 4th revert: [287]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [289] [290] Note: not article talk page as multiple articles involved.

Comments:

Note: I am an involved editor. See also Melbourne Rectangular Stadium for another article. Note also there is an active discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 June 28#Category:Australian football (soccer) players on this topic, where this is obviously an issue of some current disagreement. Mattinbgn (talk) 06:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks Last time was one week, and this was a pretty egregious show of disruption. Courcelles 07:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob reported by User:Quigley

(Result: No action )

Page:

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)
User being reported:

Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

)

Previous version reverted to: [291]

• 1st revert: [292]
• 2nd revert: [293]
• 3rd revert: [294]
• 4th revert: [295]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [296][297]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (Not applicable, the warring was on ANI)

Comments: The ANI thread warred over was where Off2riorob accused another an administrator in good standing of personal attacks and demanded that they be desysopped after being rebuffed for attacking that administrator on his own talk page. The overwhelming consensus of commentators was that Off2riorob was taking offense to a benign common idiom and that he should not get excited [298][299][300][301] but Off2riorob responded to this with "fuck off", "fuck your mother", and "fuck you and your mother". Editors warned him personally to stop his disruptive behavior.[302][303] At that point, Strange Passerby hatted the discussion to stop more drama, but Off2riorob modified Strange Passerby's archive box to continue his argument (see "Previous version reverted to"), then started reverting to continue accusing the administrator, breaking 3rr in the process. As of this writing, he has stopped editing without any talk or reconciliation, and the page is stable with Off2riorob's commentary gone.

talk

) 07:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I noticed this too. It seemed like there were 3 technical reverts but 1 or 2 reverts before those that were reverts through modification. Ryan Vesey (talk) 07:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I recommend no action, as Rob stopped and seems to have stayed stopped. However, I am going to bed and leaving this to whomever is up. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Georgewilliamherbert. Also Wikipedia:Just drop it. Viriditas (talk) 08:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

While those directly involved and effected by Rob's words and actions last night are perfectly willing to let all of this drop for obvious reasons of basic human compassion (realizing that something said really offended him even though it wasn't intended to and that he needed simply to cool down), Quigley appears to be out for blood. His comments and involvement at the AN/I discussion were completely unhelpful. Someone should advise him to back off as opposed to trying to turn unfortunate situations into his own political gain.Griswaldo (talk) 12:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Not blocked - this is a fight about a fight about a fight, and it's over. It's just not worth pursuing about this point. Everyone's reminded to act collegially and please work in a spirit of compromise. If the behavior continues in the future, there may be reason to block then. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Δ reported by User:FleetCommand (Result: Both editors blocked for 24 hours)

Page:

List of Rozen Maiden characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs

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

Previous version reverted to: [304]

• 1st revert: [305] (8 July)
• 2nd revert: [306] (8 July)
• 3rd revert: [307] (8 July)
• A revert by User:Beetstra: [308]
• A revert by User:Beetstra: [309]
• 4th revert: [310] (9 July)
• 5th revert: [311] (9 July)
• 6th revert: [312] (9 July)
• 7th revert: [313] (9 July)
  WP:3RR
  violated!
• 8th revert: [314] (9 July)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [315] and [316]

Comments:

This user constantly removes image from the article and deems his own edit unquestionable while it is heavily questioned and contested. Have not participated in talk page and but also does not accept its consensus. User who have contested his edit include: User:Island Monkey, User:Jheald, User:Kintetsubuffalo and User:FleetCommand. Fleet Command (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

My actions are well within NFCC, the individual files are excessive and also violate

WP:NFCC#1 as they are replaceable with a group shot [317] which is standard practice on these lists. Thus no 3RR as happened. ΔT _{^{The only constant}}

16:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, NFC#1 refers to images being replaced by free equivalents. Do you aware of a free equivalent which could replace the non-free images? If not, NFC#1 doesn't apply, irrspective as to whether or not the non-free image is a group shot or multiple individual images. - Bilby (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Its a failure of 1,3, and 8. The individual files are easily replaceable with a group shot. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 16:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Noting these images are not exempt from 3RR restrictions as there is nothing to allow edit warring over interpretations of the
  WP:NFLISTS that editors should "consider restricting" images used to identify elements in the article to "major characters...as agreed to by editor consensus". That seems to be the case here, as only several major characters have images. The guideline example is only advisory, not mandatory, and urges several images, not none. Even if you disagree on which specific images should be use, the guideline requires consensus, not edit warring past 3RR. This exact violation just happened a few days ago on the exact same issue, and is likely to continue unless and until stopped. - Wikidemon (talk
  ) 16:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Im quoting
  WP:NFCC#3 not just NFLISTS. NFCC#3 is policy and is exempt. ΔT _{^{The only constant}}
  16:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• (ec times several)
  WP:NFCC#1
  talks about replacement with a free equivalent. It is unlikely that a free equivalent is available, so Delta may be citing the wrong clause.

As for replacement with a group shot, that is certainly an important consideration; but as I understand it, it is not confirmed that any of the photos on the google page that Delta linked to represents an actual screengrab or an officially created group shot. According to policy, a user-created collage or piece of derivative art cannot be accepted.

WP:3RRNO states very clearly that it is only applicable to unquestionable failures of NFCC. That has not been established here, and so repeated reverts by Delta are inappropriate. Delta appears to be intentionally and knowingly pushing this, as if deliberately seeking out a ruling here; he runs the risk of learning that those who play with matches can get burnt. Jheald (talk

) 16:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• WP:3RR while knowing that their edits could go over the edge. Everyone needs to stop. Magog the Ogre (talk
  ) 16:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Completely bad block, because there is unequivocal NFCC policy here:
    WP:NFCC#3a Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.. That's policy, Delta found a single non-free image that replaces the multiple non-frees. --MASEM (t
    ) 17:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Did he? Which one? Jheald (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
      • As noted on the article talk page, this one which is happily being hosted on zh.wikipedia. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
        • (ec)Well, there's a large number of images there - I recognize that there's fanworks and montages but I would have a hard time believing there is not one promo image from the show's copyright owners themselves to use. And as I believe Delta pointed out earlier, there's bound to be a group shot from the animated show itself. The key point: like with non-frees of living persons per NFCC #1, we don't need immediately availability of a single non-free replacement for multiple non-frees - it is that it is more than likely that one can be found to do the same job per NFCC#3a. --MASEM (t) 17:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
• It is my opinion as the admin who was working AN3 at the moment that Delta is not editing in a spirit of compromise. There are more collegial ways of going about things. Additionally, making these many edits, Delta knows there will be more shitstorms to brew after his edits - proceding anyway is right under the definition of
  WP:DE. Magog the Ogre (talk
  ) 17:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - if there is significant oppositoin to the block, I am OK with its reversal. But I maintain the pattern of behavior from Beta/Delta/etc. is heavily uncompromising and disrupting to the project, and has been for literally years (a look back at his original RfA actually brings up tons of editors who complain about his lack of communication and bullish style). I do not personally think an unblock will do anything except cause further disruption. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Given the ongoing threads elsewhere that the people who are blocked are directly involved in, I think the better option is to unblock, and allow the article protection to do its job. Quite a number of people were involved in removing/adding the images. The nuke from orbit approach isn't helping. Let the article protection do its job. There is ongoing discussion on the article's talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• I hadn't realized the article was protected. But really, if we don't nip edit warring in the bud now, when will we? I see above you've mentioned another image that Beta had found; and yet, you notice he didn't upload it and try to use it; he just removed the content. This is indicative of this entire dispute. Frankly, I don't know how else to say it, but it doesn't matter a rat's ass whether he's right about the NFCC at this point; he's just causing disruption. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, Dirk found it. I don't know if Δ's seen it or not. Regardless, he's not compelled to upload it. I know it doesn't matter whether he's right or wrong in this case. My point is that protection is doing it's job. The various editors blocked from this incident are involved elsewhere, and it is a disservice to discussions elsewhere to block them. One nail is fine, two is overkill right now. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• I am willing to unblock or allow another administrator to do so should I leave if there is more consensus for it, but in the interest of fairness, I think we should wait out the opinions of a few more in the community, preferably uninvolved (all approximately 3 who are left). I still have worries about the terrible use of communication and brute force reverting, and I don't see him being repentant of these, and I'd like more opinion on it personally. Just like an block is not to be punitive but to stop the disruption, an unblock is to stop disruption, etc. etc. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, he did break his speed restriction (again) during the latest edit wars: 2011-07-08 01:00:00. 69.153.187.219 (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• There is a throttle restriction violation from 00:53 to 01:00 8 July. But, those edits are all (but one, the first) for "adjusting filename after rename", an approved task. The edits at 1:07 and beyond were not in violation of the edit throttle. The total was 43 edits, a slight overage doing an approved task. I don't see any harm here. Not that he should be exceeding it, but there was no harm caused by doing so. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)