Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive203

Page: Right-to-work law (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lyonscc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [diff] 15:09, 14 December 2012 (diff | hist) Right-to-work law (In WP Articles, proponents of a position typically fall first before opposing arguments (which logically flows bettwe))
• 2nd revert: [diff] 04:43, 15 December 2012 (diff | hist) Right-to-work law (Switched order back to Proponents then Opponents, per WP convention to fully explore the topic before presenting opposing viewpoint sections)
• 3rd revert: [diff] 14:19, 15 December 2012 (diff | hist) Right-to-work law (Please discuss changes on talk page. BLS Stats do show what is claimed, and supporting arguments run first in an article before dissenting ones (per convention))
• 4th revert: [diff] 19:09, 15 December 2012 (diff | hist) Right-to-work law (/* Proponents */)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [1]

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

Comments:
Diffs 3 and 4 are different information than 1 and 2,, where #4 was reverting a POV rewording of an NPOV-worded statementLyonscc (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Lyonscc is pushing a POV by reverting the opposing and pro section 4 separate times.

1st time: 15:09, 14 December 2012‎ Lyonscc (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,840 bytes) (-1,361)‎ . . (In WP Articles, proponents of a position typically fall first before opposing arguments (which logically flows bettwe))

2nd time: 04:43, 15 December 2012‎ Lyonscc (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,234 bytes) (-159)‎ . . (Switched order back to Proponents then Opponents, per WP convention to fully explore the topic before presenting opposing viewpoint sections)

3rd time: 14:19, 15 December 2012‎ Lyonscc (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,234 bytes) (+453)‎ . . (Please discuss changes on talk page. BLS Stats do show what is claimed, and supporting arguments run first in an article before dissenting ones (per convention))

4th time: 19:09, 15 December 2012‎ Lyonscc (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,058 bytes) (-1,081)‎ . . (→‎Proponents) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Komputerzrkool (talk • contribs)

The logical flow of arguments is summary, opposing view, THEN pro view as a counterargument. Here are 3 examples within wikipedia that list the opposing viewpoint right after the summary

Example, #1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_reform

Notice how in the "Campaign Finance Law" article, there is section titled "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission." In this section, the opposing viewpoint is listed immediately after the summary of the ruling and BEFORE the section listing Senator McCain and Mitch McConnell's pro viewpoints.

Example #2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_penalty

Notice how in the "Brady Bill" article, there is section titled "Movements towards humane execution," followed by a section titled "Abolitionism." Both of these viewpoints sections are opposing viewpoints and are listed BEFORE any pro viewpoint.

Example #3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia

Notice how in the "Euthanasia" article, there is a section titled "Euthanasia Debate." The very first sentence in this section is the viewpoint of euthanasia OPPONENT Ezekiel Emanuel. THEN, the viewpoint of Pro-euthanasia activists is listed.

There is clearly a pattern of listing opposing viewpoints first and then the pro viewpoint as a counterargument. THAT is the logical flow for an argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Komputerzrkool (talk • contribs) 21:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Komputerzrkool, I realize posting on these boards can be quite thorny, but you're supposed to provide diffs to the reverts you allege, that the admin checking this can click on. Your list of reverts is just plain text — no diffs. (Not sure why there are two lists, but neither of them has any diffs.) Please check in the edit field of this page to see the code other people have used to create diffs, for instance in Lyonscc's post above. Or see the how-to page Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide. Please edit your post to contain diffs, so that an admin can work with it. Bishonen | talk 21:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC).

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: [2]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

• Note. It's true that OneBucPerson violated 3RR. However, the edit-warring warning came after the fourth revert, and they have not reverted since. In addition, the editor has discussed the content dispute with you on the article talk page and on your talk page. Although I know nothing about the material, their argument seems at least reasonable (I'm not saying who's "right"). I'm not inclined to sanction the editor who has very few edits and a clean log. However, I'd like to ensure that they understand the policy, what they did violated it, and that they must be more careful in the future. To that effect, I will leave a comment on their talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: [9]

• 1st revert: [10]
• 2nd revert: [11]
• 3rd revert: [12]
• 4th revert: [13]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15] (pointing out in 3RR message that the inclusion of these systems has been discussed previously on the talk page of the article in question. (ed [16])

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

• 1st revert: [17]
• 2nd revert: [18]
• 3rd revert: [19]
• 4th revert: [20]

As suspected sock puppet User:99.19.17.4

• 1: [21]
• 2: [22]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23] (3 warnings provided by 2 editors)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24]

Comments:
The editor in question, a new

) 15:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I am not going to impose an extended block based on the allegation that the IP and the registered account are the same person. The timing is suspicious, but the edits are different. The IP removed large amounts of material, whereas Johnny made relatively selective edits. Perhaps the agendas are the same, I don't know, but the 24-hour block is for the edit-warring only.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

A reasonable and measured response. Thank your for your prompt attention. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: Talk:September 11 attacks (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: J3wishVulcan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [27]
• 2nd revert: [28]
• 3rd revert: [29]
• 4th revert: [30]
• 5th revert: [31]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32]

Comments:Comments promoting conspiracy theories were hatted. The user has reverted them back four five times, and has accused the people who are not CTers of being government operatives trying to keep CTs off the page. Toa Nidhiki05 18:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Note. There is a discussion about
  WP:ANI. I will take no action on this report for the present.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 19:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31h. I had already blocked before I saw Bbb23's note about ANI. I will post there also. Black Kite (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: The Amazing Race 21 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Buck Winston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [33]
• 2nd revert: [34]
• 3rd revert: [35]
• 4th revert: [36]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38]

Comments:
I disagreed with the user's addition of a LGBT related category to a page. I also started a discussion, stopping short of violating the 3RR. However, another user reverted the editor in question and they reverted back which means they have reverted the same edit 4 times in less then 24 hours. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 22:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• So it's all right for editors to tag team and disrupt an ongoing discussion? All I'm asking is that the category be left in place pending the conclusion of the discussion, which is how I understand
  WP:BRD is supposed to work. Is that really so much to ask? There's no harm in leaving it. Not to mention that this report is really nothing but the opposing editor looking to game the system to affect the argument. Buck Winston (talk
  ) 22:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• And in looking at the evidence, the 4th edit was done at 22:12, the "notice" was posted to my talk page at 22:16 and this report was filed at 22:18. It seems clear that Intoronto is at the least being disingenuous and at best has deliberately violated procedure. Did I lose track of the number of revisions? Yes. Did any of the "bad behavior" occur after I was "warned"? No. This is bogus from start to finish. Buck Winston (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment)Regardless, you reverted 3RR. Not knowing policy is NOT an excuse for violating it, although it may be an excuse to look over it this once. You've been editing after that without reverts. I'd say give him a break, as he stopped after the warning. gwickwire^talk_edits 23:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

How have I violated procedure? I left a notice as soon as I could then filed the report as you broke the 3RR rule. Personally attacking other users and then brushing of Wikipedia policies is going to do you no favours. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 22:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

You didn't violate procedure, but you did report after warning but before another violation. It would have been better to wait until he reverted again after being warned to report. gwickwire^talk_edits 23:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the best way to handle these situations is to issue the edit-warring warning after 3 reverts. Then, if the editor reverts a 4th time, you can file the report. That said, Intoronto, you didn't "violate" anything. As far as I can tell, you were trying to discuss the issue with the editor rather than focusing on reporting. A good thing, really. Buck, your response here is notably subpar, making unfounded accusations rather than taking responsibility for your own misconduct.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. After further investigation and thought, I find Buck's claim that he lost track not to be credible. In addition, he left harassing messages related to the cat on other editors' talk pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: Indigenous peoples (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Crock81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: all edits below are labelled as reverts

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44], [45]

Comments:
The steady series of reversions by Crock81—here 4 straight reverts of content added by others within 24 hours—is not helping solve any disputes on the article. I place a standard 3rr warning on Crock81's talk page. This was his reaction.[46] Mathsci (talk) 10:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Response by Crock81: Mathsci, thank you for pointing to my response to your warning notice, which saves retyping it all here.

A minor point, but I reached consensus of sorts with Maunus, by me adding a wikilink to an article he raised in Talk as an issue, and in that his edit summary said "definition should not be a quote, since the usage is wider than the definition of any specific source - the definition here should encompass all of them", i.e. a wider, all encompassing usage would have to be a definition with a more general context (see below) which is what the definition I provided in fact does by encompassing broad areas of treatment that ought to be in the article: belonging to a certain country or region (literal "indigenousness"), distinctiveness, language, customs and indigenous attitudes. (definitions are always quoted since the wording is all-important).

At the time to the question here You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? The answer was no, because Ubikwit expects editors to suspend life when editing, so after posting to the article Talk page he didn't wait for my reply, despite knowing the text was subject to reversion before, but still reverted! Common sense would have suggested that I would have replied since I had done so previously, had requested he talk to me before doing anything else again, and had endorsed EdJohnston‎'s advice to use the talk page for discussion.

I was reverted by Ubikwit without him attempting to talk on the three previous occasions, after which he delivered a monologue to which I have now responded a link to the discussion here.

Note that I requested Ubikwit to discuss his claims and conflicts of opinion before, and it is as I pointed out to Mathsci the same advice given to him by EdJohnston‎.

The problem is that although Ubikwit loves to 'spar', he seems to loath reading. Notably he hasn't read the paper from which the, in his opinion, all-important "quoted definition" by Coats came from, never mind that it is in fact a paraphrase, which contradicts several sources, including in the article introduction and body, that no such definition in the international law exists! Coats, a professor of law and a direct participant (via Canadian First Nations) in the process by which the claimed 'definition' was produced, could not have arrived at a definition in 1999 after one was rejected in 1987!

Having scored a 'victory' of bringing me to the Edit warring noticeboard, Ubikwit has not done even so much as to read the entire 'new' old introduction which now contradicts itself!

His reversion of my more simpler and inclusive definition therefore contradicts the body of the article, which is a definite no no per

If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist. Similarly, if the title is a specialised term, provide the context as early as possible.

In fact both conditions are true for the purpose of my reversions.

"indigenousness" constitutes sui generis, i.e a specialised 'term' of identifying groups in law.

The subject is not definable as of current time/date in the international law with which the UN is concerned, and by the consensus of the UN member organisations. I therefore offered a more general and concise definition, quoted in full and referenced to a source generally available to those who may want to consult it. Coates is available only in hard copy, and only after a stack request from a major library.

The paraphrased definition is certainly not representative of the "international or national legislation", which wasn't even being addressed by Coats in the summary of his paper where the 'definition' is derived from.

The attempt to put the 'definition' in context in the introduction presents a context limited to "groups as particularly vulnerable to exploitation, marginalization and oppression by nation states" or "by politically dominant ethnic groups" resulting in "a special set of political rights in accordance with international law...set forth by international organizations" and that "The United Nations have issued a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to guide member-state national policies in protecting the collective rights of indigenous peoples to their culture, identity, language, employment, health, education and natural resources."

As I pointed out, "protecting collective rights" is only possible through binding legal mechanisms, which the Declaration is not. Repeating this 100 or 1000 times, or giving it Wikipedia endorsement will not make it more enforceable but only ridicule Wikipedia content for suggesting it.

The intl' organisations not having recognised the supposed 'definition' provided in the lead, where is the mention in the article of the indigenous cultures, self-definitions of identity, indigenous languages, indigenous means of production, indigenous methods for use of traditional medicines and techniques, indigenous transmission of knowledge (traditional education) and management of resources by indigenous communities it is supposed to protect within the context?

In fact even the one aspect of this article that is covered in a 'daughter' article, Traditional knowledge, is still dominated by discussion of legal concepts! It's lack of balance has been noted for quite a while. The entire Indigenous peoples article is dominated by the political-legal perspective as a context.

But, is this the only context for the article? Indigenousness is found discussed in many other disciplines, and multidisciplinary sources. The perception for the reader presented by Wikipedia is that the legal definition of indigenous peoples is the SOLE meaning of indigenousness despite the offered definition's goal to protect all those other facets of indigenousness! Confused?

Ubikwit's sole intention is therefore to include the supposed 'definition' because it is useful in his POV regarding inclusive criteria in the List of indigenous peoples which supports his POV on Jews vs Palestinians. Invited to discuss this criteria in contexts other than legally framed 'definition', he remained silent, and himself engaged in edit warring with User:Evildoer187

Therefore, a) because the subject is not definable, and b) because the context in which the article is being presented ignores many other important perspectives and violates the

List of indigenous peoples, in accordance with the editing guidelines and conventions of Wikipedia Style Crock81 (talk

) 12:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The massive wall of text written by Crock81 above about the content of the article appears to miss the entire point of this report, which is edit warring. Quite frankly, I don't care what you're edit warring about, I just care whether you're edit warring. The excuse that you are "editing the article" given here is invalid as the edits themselves make it clear that you are reverting. Given that you appear to not have reverted after you were warned about violating the

12:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you care about the motivation for reverting listed in the last point after Therefore? I don't really need your condescension. You think I have nothing better to do than explain myself? I had not reverted because Ubikwit had responded on the talk page, as he was asked to do 'in the first place, and I will see where that brings us. However, as it stands, the article lead content is internally contradictory, and confusing to the reader, while disregarding WP:STYLE. Consider that. I would revert it time and again if only because I care about what I write, not the points I score Crock81 (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You'll be blocked if you do so. Your choice. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather be blocked for trying to do something right, than having given into to bullying and let millions read the article as it stands. There must have been a time when you thought this way also a long time ago, perhaps before you became an administrator.Crock81 (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: Kent Hovind (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jinx69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [55]

• 1st revert: [56]
• 2nd revert: [57]
• 3rd revert: [58]
• 4th revert: [59]
• 5th revert: [60]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [62]

Comments:
User is attempting to add material without consensus, and is personally attacking other users on the talk page, referring to their religions, or lack thereof. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: N/A this has been going on and off for a while, with slightly different sections tho the 4 reverts are of an identical one

• 1st revert: [63]
• 2nd revert: [64]
• 3rd revert: [65]
• 4th revert: [66]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [67] but honestly the thing's been going on for so long (the warning was issued after the last revert)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Stack Exchange Network#Draft

Comments:

This is a slow-moving edit war by one user who's been reverting at least 3 people and whose virtually only purpose on Wikipedia has been to introduce the a criticism section on this article. There's a WP:DRN thread at

06:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

That is not true, I have stated that WP:DRN should come to conclusion before removing the section. Otherwise the process is invalidated. WP:DRN is still open. Snowwolf is in violation of the process here. Also, your claims are unfounded, people do what they can , and apart from being actively interested on this page, I have contributed to other articles as time hasermitted and donated to wikipedia maybe more than i should. Getting involved is discouraging especially when admins do not admit to the processes and treat wikipedia as their own. BY THE WAY one of the users accepte that he is WP:NPOV and the second accepted that he has acted upon the first user , implying some knowledge, i.e. may not be WP:NPOV. I am still trying to find the third. 80.218.174.215 (talk) 07:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Yparjis (talk) 07:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's only you arguing there for keeping this rather ridicolous section and the fact that there's a DRN thread open does not authorize you to edit war and violate 3RR. Of course you have contributed to other articles, but I'd like to note that in the last 6 months you've done 48 edits, 42 of which related to this Stack Exchange Network matter. I wholly reject your accusations of

WP:OWN on my part, this is the first time I've edited the article and I have no stake in the matter, I am merely looking at the facts as I see them, and I've presented a detailed report which you haven't responded to in any significant manner. I went point by point and explained why the section has to go, you just reverted me with a comment saying you won't respond in detail... And lastly, the third user would be me, don't know how you didn't notice that I've reverted you :P Snowolf ^{How can I help?}

07:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the DRN thread is open doesn't mean we ignore the policies. As for accusing me of having a bias, please see my reply here. Bjelleklang - talk 08:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. The Criticism section appears to have a long and controversial history in the article. In terms of evaluating this report, I went back only to the beginning of December, specifically December 4, when another editor removed the section. Yparjis reverted and restored the section. Counting that as his first revert in a slow edit-war, Yparjis has 8 reverts through the present. Besides Yparjis, the two editors with the most reverts are Bjelleklang (4) and Snowolf (2). Bjelleklang became involved in the beginning of the month (December 6); Snowolf became involved very late in the game as a result of the DRN discussion. One other registered account reverted once removing the section. Effectively, Yparjis has reverted everyone, meaning he appears to have no support for his contributions. Yparjis's contention that the section must remain pending an outcome of DRN is baseless on at least two levels. First, there is no policy in support of it. Second, DRN, even when complete, is not binding.

Although content is generally irrelevant when evaluating an edit-warring report, part of my decision to block Yparjis was content-related. Criticism sections are inherently controversial. In my view, there is a higher threshold for sourcing criticism than for other material. Obviously, if this were a BLP, it would be a policy violation to have unreliably sourced negative material, but even when the subject is a company, we must be extra careful when we include criticism. Therefore, leaving out the criticism section until a consensus is reached is more prudent. I might also add that the current criticism section (I haven't looked at each iteration) is remarkably poorly written, at times virtually unintelligible.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

"two editors with the most reverts are Bjelleklang (4)" was there a ban initiated on him as well?

"Although content is generally irrelevant when evaluating an edit-warring report, part of my decision to block Yparjis was content-related" is there a policy on blocking based on content. Is that censhorship? Yparjis (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

"Criticism sections are inherently controversial" , but allowed right?

"In my view, there is a higher threshold for sourcing criticism than for other material" , implies that you are partially non WP:NPOV on taking the decision to block me. Is that in line with wikipedia policies?

"Obviously, if this were a BLP, it would be a policy violation to have unreliably sourced negative material, but even when the subject is a company, we must be extra careful when we include criticism." Obviously there is no BLP, and obviously prudency is your WP:NPOV. In that sense every controversial article (i.e. what someone does not like) should be left out in case a WP:DRN is filed. Is that indeed a wikipedia policy or is it your own personal way of doing things.

"poorly written, at times virtually unintelligible" did you get of being an administrator by insulting people?

It would be nice if these questions could be responded on a point by point basis. Yparjis (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [[70]]

• 1st revert: [[71]]
• 2nd revert: [[72]]
• 3rd revert: [[73]]
• 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[74]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: On talk page: [75]

Comments:The user in question has been blanking and redirecting this page until they deem it to be worthy of being an article. Insists on bypassing AfD process instead and has not made any attempt to merge this into the article he is redirecting to. Has blanked it once and reverted it 3x now. As I have no involvement with the actual article outside of revising the blanking/redirecting I think someone else should step in. Thanks Mrfrobinson (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Well this shows a lack of intelligence..... The very first edit was a clean edit, not a reversion. There have been two subsequent reversions, after Mrfrobinson's actions to revert it to the article, which makes no sense since it is a stub. Both of my reversions came BEFORE his warning and I've not touched the article since. Paralympiakos (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. The first edit was a revert as it undid other editors' contributions (wiping them out, in fact). Therefore, there were three reverts. In addition, the third revert (06:19 on December 17) came after Mrfrobinson's warning (03:03 on December 17). Finally, Paralympiakos has been uncivil here (see above) and on their talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Page:

)

User being reported: Surajt88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 16:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 17:01, 15 December 2012 (edit summary: "removed poorly sourced and unsourced content. further sources to be added in talk.")
2. 10:23, 17 December 2012 (edit summary: "/* Administration */ rmv unverifiable names cited to dead links")
3. 10:30, 17 December 2012 (edit summary: "/* Notable Alumni */ rmv unverifiable names and names without supporting wikilinks")
4. 10:34, 17 December 2012 (edit summary: "/* Activities */ merge single-line-paragraphs into one paragraph")
5. 10:35, 17 December 2012 (edit summary: "further merging")
6. 10:38, 17 December 2012 (edit summary: "/* International Guest Scheme */ rmv unsourced paragraph")
7. 10:39, 17 December 2012 (edit summary: "further merging")
8. 10:41, 17 December 2012 (edit summary: "/* Notable Alumni */ rmv unsourced paragraph")
9. 10:43, 17 December 2012 (edit summary: "/* International Guest Scheme */ rmv accidental reinstating of previous removal")
10. 10:46, 17 December 2012 (edit summary: "further merging")
11. 11:00, 17 December 2012 (edit summary: "/* Activities */ Adding section which was removed unintentionally")
12. 11:03, 17 December 2012 (edit summary: "/* History */ split history section")
13. 11:04, 17 December 2012 (edit summary: "fmt")
14. 03:15, 18 December 2012 (edit summary: "kindly discuss in the talk page before blanket reverting. I have provided my rationale. n I am sure you provide a better rationale than copy pasting a paragraph from wp guideline. please "discuss" before reverting")
15. 03:19, 18 December 2012 (edit summary: "+kalki koechlin with ref added by Alan.gilfroy in a previous edit")
16. 04:53, 18 December 2012 (edit summary: "added sourced info to campus section")
17. 04:54, 18 December 2012 (edit summary: "/* Academics */ adding sourced info")
18. 04:57, 18 December 2012 (edit summary: "/* Residential Care */ typo")
19. 05:00, 18 December 2012 (edit summary: "/* Residential Care */ +info")
20. 05:02, 18 December 2012 (edit summary: "/* Sport */ +info")
21. 05:03, 18 December 2012 (edit summary: "/* Activities */ typo")
22. 05:04, 18 December 2012 (edit summary: "/* Sports */ heading-->sub heading")
23. 06:44, 18 December 2012 (edit summary: "/* International Guest Scheme */ added in residential facility section")
24. 11:31, 18 December 2012 (edit summary: "/* Notable Alumni */ sorry. an extensive aearch for citation has 0 results. as such it may be added with a source to support it.")
25. 11:37, 18 December 2012 (edit summary: "/* Notable Attendees */ no online mentions for this info after an extensive search. please read WITH A SOURCE")
26. 11:47, 18 December 2012 (edit summary: "+government recognized")
27. 11:51, 18 December 2012 (edit summary: "/* History */ added info with source")
28. 12:33, 18 December 2012 (edit summary: "/* Music */ +sourced info")
29. 12:37, 18 December 2012 (edit summary: "/* Music */ correct wikilink")
30. 12:39, 18 December 2012 (edit summary: "/* Administration */ removing bulleting")
31. 12:39, 18 December 2012 (edit summary: "/* Administration */ +^{[citation needed]}")
32. 12:41, 18 December 2012 (edit summary: "/* Student Council */ section-->sub section")
33. 12:42, 18 December 2012 (edit summary: "/* Administration */ rmv duplicate ^{[citation needed]}")
34. 14:14, 18 December 2012 (edit summary: "rv unconstructive reversion")
35. 15:32, 18 December 2012 (edit summary: "rv unexplained removal")

• Diff of warning: here

—Alan.Gilfroy (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The user is repeatedly deleting information which other users contribute. He deletes statements (which are neither malicious nor exagerrated)which are awaiting citable sources (tagged with "needs citation"). Considerable progress has been made in finding these sources. The user also degrades the article by making it difficult for viewers to read (merging paragraphs, deleting bullet points). He also seems eager to delete pictures which are clearly within rights of non-free criterion. Finally, the user's latest contribution use poor English (poor punctuation, grammar) often with a personal, non-neutral touch to it. Thanks for your assistance. Alan.Gilfroy^(talk) 16:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Note. The "diff" above for warning him about edit-warring is not a diff and not a warning. You also didn't notify the editor as is required (see the instructions at the top of this page); I have done so for you. Both of you are edit-warring, by the way, but I'll give Surajt88 an opportunity to respond.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
• Declined. I started scanning the diffs listed above but there doesn't seem to be much evidence of edit warring in them. The editor is merely making a large number of changes, many different ones, to the article. Except for the last few but there both of you are edit warring and neither of you seems to have crossed the line. THe matter has gone to DRN, so let's just leave it there. --regentspark (comment) 03:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: Survivor: Philippines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gogo Dodo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Survivor%3A_Philippines&diff=528595848&oldid=528595484

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Survivor%3A_Philippines&diff=528595848&oldid=528595484
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Survivor:_Philippines&diff=528652968&oldid=528643906
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Survivor%3A_Philippines&diff=528716575&oldid=528716263
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Survivor:_Philippines&diff=528717646&oldid=528717287

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: n/a

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:Survivor: Philippines#Final three listing order

Comments:

Yes, I'm reporting myself. I realized that I broke 3RR in 24 hours and have self-reverted [76]. I've also made kind of a mess at a WP:RFPP request (see there). It leaves the article and the hidden comments (which I had added) in a contradictory state though. The beginning of the article is listed alphabetically and the later part of the article is per the hidden comment and talk page. I'm feeling rather sick after realizing that I've broken 3RR and am self-imposing a 24 hour "block" of sorts where I will refrain from making any edits for at least 24 hours after this report is posted. I know this report is rather unusual, but I feel it is a "the right thing to do" and admins are held to a higher standard. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Declined. A block at this point would be inappropriately punitive, and I would decline this report regardless of "who" you are. Admins are, by policy, held to higher standards in certain areas, but admins are also editors and can and do make mistakes. The important thing is what you do after you make a mistake. I don't see how you could have done any more. When you come back from your self-imposed "block", if someone hasn't already done so, you might want to clean the article up so it's no longer in a "contradictory state", without imposing your own content version (I haven't looked at the content dispute). Don't feel "sick"; rest up (breaks are good for all of us) and be more careful in the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: A2 milk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Srisharmaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

• 1st revert: diff 7 Dec
• 2nd revert: diff 7 Dec
• 3rd revert: diff 7 Dec
• 4th revert: diff 7 Dec
• 5th revert: diff 7 Dec
• 6th revert: diff 7 Dec
• 7th revert: diff 14 Dec
• 8th revert: diff 15 Dec
• 9th revert: diff 15 Dec
• 10th revert: diff 15 Dec

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 7 Dec 15 Dec

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

Section Talk:A2 milk#Reasons to UNDO edits is the discussion

Also added about 26 "See also" links to A2 which "appear promotional" See user Special:Contributions/Srisharmaa Many reverts by

(Doc James)
Jim1138 (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

We need to based stuff on proper secondary sources and we should not be using primary ones in an attempt to refute the secondary sources per

talk · contribs · email

) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Note. Although there's been no recent breach of 3RR (December 7 is too old), I believe Srisharmaa has edit-warred, in addition to disruptively editing other articles. However, they have made no edits since the filing of this report, and I'd prefer to wait for them to respond. I have left a note on their talk page telling them a response here is required.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Adding my two cents here... I'm glad this EWN report was filed, I was going to file it myself had I not seen it filed already. There's strong evidence of a behavior issue with

21:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

No Brand Promotion intended:I would like to inform that "A2 milk" is not a brand to promote.It's a kind of milk which is genetically different from A1 milk.I am also against any Brand promotion in Wikipedia such as "a2 milk brand of a2 Corporation".In the article's Talk page I have discussed this in detail. I have urged to create a new article named "A2 milk brand" if it is necessary(as I could see some Promotions of "a2 corporation" which seems to promote "A2 MILK TYPE" with its milk brand called "a2 milk").

I have not added "See Also" pages which are not related to milk.I think it is sensible to do so,so that readers may be aware of A2 milk.So,removing "A2 milk" from "See Also" in milk-related articles without valid reasons doesn't make sense.I hope the editor who reverted such edits restores the "See Also" pages in the articles.Giving reasons regarding how it is inappropriate to add such "see also" pages in milk-related articles would be appreciated.Srisharmaa (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Several editors have expressed a concern over the relevance of many of the articles to which you added See also links. There is now a discussion over which articles should have See also links here: Talk:A2_milk#.22See_also.22s_that_should_link_here. Zad68 16:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment Srisharmaa is still reverting rather than discussing Milk diff, Soy milk diff, Raw milk diff Flagging some reverts as undoing vandalism although this might be unfamiliarity with twinkle. Jim1138 (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Editor did not respond to offer on their talk page despite having contributed after offer was posted.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Page:

)
Page: List of Person of Interest episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to: [84]

• 1st revert: [85]
• 2nd revert: [86]
• 3rd revert: [87]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [88]

Comments:
Editor told me I'm too new to complex articles, implying that shouldn't contribute meaningful information to Wikipedia. I'm just trying to contribute so that a consensus could be reached (even though already five editors are in favor of splitting article). But the editor wages

) 19:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Editor has made minimal effort to discuss, I haven't violated 3RR (one cited revert is a self revert) and editor by his own admission doesn't know how to independently split article he attempted to split during an ongoing discussion and against

) 19:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Note. Although the diffs are not listed properly, when one looks at the history of the main episodes article and the season 1 article, both Chihciboy and Drmargi are edit-warring, and I'm tempted to block them both. I don't want to hear anything about
  WP:SIZERULE. I want to hear from Drmargi as to why she keeps redirecting the season 1 article, removing the split tag, and adding back the material to the episodes article, despite the fact that there is an ongoing discussion on the article talk page with no consensus as to what should be done. The removal of the tag is the most serious problem. A few more comments. SIZERULE is a guideline, not a policy. Chihciboy did not "badly misrepresent" Drmargi's comment ("You are too new an editor to be making edit decisions, much less edits this complex"), just the inference he drew from it.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 20:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That will require a fairly lengthy response, and I'm editing on an iPad at the moment. I'll be in transit for the next three hours minimum, then will respond when I can access a keyboard. Drmargi (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Home now, and after a couple hours' driving and thinking time, I find I'm feeling more than a little uncomfortable with Bbb23's comments; actually, I feel put on the defensive, and sense not assumption of good faith on his part. He want to know why I did what I did, but in a manner that cuts off what I might potentially have said and suggests some pre-dispositon on his part. Frankly, given that, I'm tempted to request another, more impartial admin review this case.

That said, all I was doing was returning the articles to status quo, per

WP:BRD

, something I've seen any number of editors do in similar circumstances. Given the tag Chichiboy should have entered the discussion rather than attempt to split the article yet again; he failed to do so, so I reverted, period. He's a new editor, and as novices do, he was discussing via edit summary; a couple reverts got his attention, and he made a cursory attempt at discussion before rushing over here in an attempt to get his own way rather than to work with other editors toward consensus. I'm concerned that his rush to file here well in advance of any 3RR violation and in the presence of problematic editing of his own merits so little comment.

I do have to own to one mistake. I removed the tag (and I believe I've only removed it once) because I felt that it was pointy editing at the time it was added, and was creating more trouble than it solved. After a few minutes, I had a re-think, realized I'd made a poor decision, and reverted the edit, intending to go back to the last version with the tag. It wasn't that I looked at what I actually did a few minutes ago that I saw I didn't go back far enough. It can be tricky to see the full contents of the edit window on an iPad when the lower third of the screen is overlapping keyboard, and I hit the wrong radio button. So hands up there, I'll own to that mistake, but my intentions were good.

If Chichiboy wants to contribute to the reaching of consensus, he needs to act in a way that shows he is. Thus far his actions have been entirely independent of the ongoing discussion, save one sentence. I have yet to see any content in the various attempts at splitting (and I'm not the only one who has reverted them, I might add) other than regurgitation, generally word-for-word, of what's already in the main article. I hope that, somewhere along the line, some editor can present an argument for splitting a comparatively small article other than "but everyone does it!". My mother always had wise words about noses, faces and doing what everyone else does. --Drmargi (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:BRD is not an exemption from edit-warring. Given what you said about the tag, why haven't you restored it?--Bbb23 (talk

) 23:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

DId I say it was? I didn't restore the tag because this was ongoing, which I thought was protocol based on my reading of past cases, nothing more. I checked this numerous times, saw no response from you, and thought it best to leave well enough alone until you responded. A little

WP:AGF wouldn't come amiss, particularly from an admin. --Drmargi (talk

) 08:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Result: No action for now, since the edit war has not continued since 16 December. Both parties are advised not to revert again until the discussion at
  Wikipedia:WikiProject American television/Participants. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 05:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: Sok-not (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [89]
• 2nd revert: [90]
• 3rd revert: [91]
• 4th revert: [92]
• 5th revert: [93] (as an IP)
• 6th revert: [94]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [95]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
It would also be helpful to have the template semi-protected. Frietjes (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

this is possibly related to User talk:Burham#Blocked as a sockpuppet, who is in the thread of the talk page. Frietjes (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Frietjes is very obstinate person. As you can see I ask other editors and him specifically to express their arguments against including 'bureaucracy' in the template. Until know I got nothing but reverts. So who is the edit warrior? Please explain to Mr. Frietjes that reverting without a case (I mean just with POV) is vandalism. --Sok-not (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Sok-not also appears to be edit-warring at the government article (Sok-not admitted to being the IP I first reverted and stated an intent to revert the article again on my talk page). A cursory examination of their edits indicates that Sok-not is a sock of blocked editor Burham Serafin. SQGibbon (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. For sock issue, see report.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: Secretariat (horse) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 22:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

See overall history for reversion comments by three different editors Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 16:04, 12 December 2012 (edit summary: "/* Posthumous recognition */This is perhaps his greatest achievement.")
2. 16:11, 12 December 2012 (edit summary: "/* Posthumous recognition */ This is perhaps his greatest achievement.")
3. 16:54, 14 December 2012 (edit summary: "/* Posthumous recognition */Perhaps this was his greatest achievement, right?")
4. 00:19, 15 December 2012 (edit summary: "/* Posthumous recognition */ Perhaps his greatest achievement.")
5. 20:40, 17 December 2012 (edit summary: "/* Posthumous recognition */ Mr. Austinuity, you don't think that that is a great achievement? Something no other horse has done as often? My source is The Life and times of Secretariat.")

—Montanabw^(talk) 22:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] New account, has been warned on talk by three different editors (one different from the three reverting changes in article): User_talk:Ace_Mathias

Comments:

Normally, I wouldn't jump on a new user so fast, but this is a situation where we may have an account created solely for disruption. This editor managed to quickly figure out ref tags and feedback, may be a sock, but no idea who, so not enough evidence for an SPI. Montanabw^(talk) 22:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

He's a sock of User:KennethLMathias, at least. The old account was last used in October, though, and has no outstanding blocks or even warnings, so I'm not sure the sockpuppetry angle is really a problem; could be that he just forgot his password and created a new account or something. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

As long as this particular problem stops and doesn't start up again at the article in question or elsewhere, I'll be satisfied. Montanabw^(talk) 19:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Warned. I asked the editor to promise not to edit the article for at least 7 days to avoid a block. They did not respond. I'm assuming they saw it because they made one contribution after I posted it. However, based on your statement, Montanabw, I am going to close this and add a warning to my offer as they haven't edited the article and they appear to be withdrawing from the fray ("You're the boss"). Please reopen this report or notify me on my talk page if they edit the article again.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

That seems an appropriate solution. Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 18:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: [96]

• 1st revert: [97]
• 2nd revert: [98] [99]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [100]

Comments:

(he was most recently blocked in October)

Blocked – for a period of 5 days.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [102]

• 1st revert: [103],[104],[105]
• 2nd revert: [106]
• 3rd revert: [107]
• 4th revert: [108]
• 5th revert: [109]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [110] (actually a copyvio/spam warning)

[111]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [112]

WP:SPA, is connected to the company ("this user has been vandalizing our site").--Bbb23 (talk

) 20:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: Nelson H. Barbour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.106.8.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [113]

• 1st revert: [114]
• 2nd revert: [115]
• 3rd revert: [116]
• 4th revert: [117]
• 5th revert: [118]
• 6th revert: [119]
• 7th revert: [120]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [121]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [122]

Comments:
Here's a pretty clear statement of the editor's intentions.

— Bdb484 (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected. I've semi-protected the article for one week because of the disruptive editing by the IP and by the one registered account, which is apparent meat puppetry. See SPI report.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: The Final Page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.34.224.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [123]

• 1st revert: [124]
• 2nd revert: [125]
• 3rd revert: [126]
• 4th revert: [127]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [128]

Comments:

This editor added some text yesterday. One editor (96.49.65.5) reverted the addition. Then the original editor re-added the text. Then a second, different editor (Eaglestorm) removed it. Then the original editor re-added a second time. I then removed it again and advised the editor to take it to the talk page. He ignored that and just re-added - for the third time. So I reverted that and posted a 3RR warning, again advising that he take it to the talk page. He ignored that again and reverted - for the fourth time.99.192.87.126 (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: Raspberry Pi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 121.72.121.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [129]

• 1st revert: [130]
• 2nd revert: [131]
• 3rd revert: [132]
• 4th revert: [133]
• 5th revert (after getting An3-notice): [134]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [135]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I have not been actively editing this page -- I just watch it for vandalism -- so I have left any discussion about the conflict to the editors who are working on the page.

Comments: Mahjongg is active on the Raspberry Pi discussion board cited, and that from an engineering standpoint he is correct. I plan on improving the sourcing for the section with citations to manufacturer's datasheets after this edit war is put to bed. Notifying 121.72.121.67 now. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: List of Virtual Console games for Nintendo 3DS (PAL region) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.219.94.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [136]

• 1st revert: [137]
• 2nd revert: [138]
• 3rd revert: [139]
• 4th revert: [140]
• 5th revert: [141]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [142] (Warning was for similar conduct at List of Virtual Console games for Nintendo 3DS (North America) before it was semi-protected by Sergecross73 (talk · contribs))

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [143] (link to discussion on PAL region page)

Comments:
This user has made changes at

05:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Result: IP editor blocked 48 hours and article semiprotected for a week by User:Ged UK. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

This topic concerns a block evasion and not specifically a case of edit warring. I posted it here since there's no section for obvious block evasions, i.e., where a sockpuppet investigation is not necessary.

The user Æðð (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is evading his block by editing through an IP (174.48.32.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) and is again engaging in semi-vandal editing involving edit warring. This comment explicitly confirms his usage of the IP address. Please, take actions to prevent him from disrupting the project. --glossologist (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

There has been no attempt to circumvent the ban, nor edit war - you have no case to make for either claim which is why you won't provide any specific examples of this "vandalism." The example you're providing is of the single instance in which I contributed to the same page with both accounts, and I immediately noted the error.

You've made no attempt to bring your edits up for discussion on the talk page, because you know they're tendentious and POV. This is why you aren't providing the contributions that led to this conflict.--174.48.32.232 (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

See

WP:ILLEGIT. Your account has been blocked because of edit warring and, as you've continued to make controversial edits (e.g. edit warring [144]

) by using IP before your block has ended, the block can be reinstated.

As for the alleged vandalism, this massive deletion of the cited material without discussing it at the talk page by only giving brief comments in the edit summary can be arguably qualified as vandalism on the grounds of the personal bias, although I didn't say it was vandalism, I mentioned "semi-vandal editing". Messages and comments from other users note to the persistence of such behaviour.

Also, you should remember that WP:Consensus obliges you to start a discussion at the article talk page if you get reverted after you make a new edit to a consensus version. --glossologist (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Result: 174.48.32.232 (talk · contribs) blocked three months as an IP sock, Æðð (talk · contribs), two months for evasion since he is editing as an IP to evade a one-month block of his main account. EdJohnston (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Page:

)

User being reported: Ngfan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 14:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 00:52, 20 December 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 528873180 by Beyond My Ken (talk)")
2. 23:08, 20 December 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 528886969 by Heironymous Rowe (talk)")
3. 00:17, 21 December 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 529031041 by Beyond My Ken (talk)")
4. 02:41, 21 December 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 529054092 by Beyond My Ken (talk)")
5. 22:49, 21 December 2012 (edit summary: "/* Electoral participation */")
6. 23:05, 21 December 2012 (edit summary: "/* Electoral participation */")

• Diff of warning: here

—

) 14:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a bit late, but I tried to post this about 9 hours ago, didn't notice that it hadn't posted, tried again 3 hours ago and thought it had, now successful. Maybe having over 300 tabs open is a bad idea.

talk

) 14:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Kuru (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: Metra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.188.158.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

1. 20:09, 21 December 2012
2. 21:05, 22 December 2012
3. 21:58, 22 December 2012
4. 22:14, 22 December 2012
5. 22:23, 22 December 2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] 3RR Warning at User's Talk Page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Section at article's talk page

Comments:
This editor seems to have a history of reverting edits with his own unsourced changes. This editor has posted comments directly to the page itself. I assumed he was trying to communicate in good faith and tried responding there in addition to appropriate channels (article's talk page and editor's talk page). The editor simply removed my comment and reverted again. DR04 (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Note. @DR04, you did everything right except you reverted more than three times. I can't ignore that, block the IP and not block you, even though the IP's behavior is clearly more disruptive. So, here's what I propose: (1) no blocks, (2) I'm going to edit the article myself (sigh) to restore the 241 stations and include a source (you forgot to include a full reference, so it didn't work), and (3) post a warning on the IP's talk page that they cannot revert without discussion and consensus or they will be blocked. If for some reason, they ignore my warning, do NOT revert the edit. In fact, you should stay clear of the article for at least a day because of your previous reverts.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining this Bbb23. What seems frustrating here is that sometimes there is too much of a focus on policy rather than what's good for the encyclopedia. I wouldn't consider my edits less disruptive than his; clearly my edits weren't disruptive at all (albeit I screwed up the ref). My fourth revert was an assumption of good faith in that the user behind the IP didn't know how to communicate using talk pages, etc. But it got me in trouble due to policy. This entire process has been overwhelmingly frustrating and bureaucratic considering the user behind the IP is showing zero good faith and has a track record of the same. It's wasted enough of my and your time. Such nonsense has been a disincentive for me to edit in the past. And it hurts the encyclopedia. But I understand you only have good intentions and appreciate your assistance here. Don't worry, I'll steer clear for probably more than a day. Ugh. DR04 (talk) 01:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand your frustration. In the future, though, just warn the editor after they've hit 3 reverts, and report them if they revert yet again. It isn't the end of the world if the article has the wrong number of stations for a while. Don't get caught up in the perceived unfairness. It'll just raise your stress levels. Go edit another article. In the end, it should come out all right, and you won't have to be concerned about being sanctioned needlessly. Wikipedia needs good editors, but you need to find a way not to let it get to you when these things happen. I know it isn't easy sometimes.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. The IP reverted again after my warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: Same-sex marriage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 03:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 20:20, 21 December 2012 (edit summary: "added that marriage equality is used by supporters and changed marriage equality to same-sex marriage in the following paragraph as marriage equality is a POV term")
2. 20:26, 21 December 2012 (edit summary: "/* United States */ random info")
3. 04:07, 22 December 2012 (edit summary: "POV term")
4. 04:14, 22 December 2012 (edit summary: ""supporters" isn't a weasel word, it's quite specific, it's unlike the examples given here:
   WP:WEASEL
   . also, it's not exclusively referred to as marriage equality in the legal sense: cultural, social, etc")
5. 18:46, 22 December 2012 (edit summary: "your edit summary didn't respond to my reasons for changing it. I'll try again: "marriage equality" is a term only used by supporters so i'm changing it to "same-sex marriage" and i'm removing "legal recognition" because it is also social, cultural, etc")
6. 00:18, 24 December 2012 (edit summary: "the term isn't just used in the legal sense but also social, cultural, etc by supporters. also, no appropriate source has been provided that shows it is a neutral term, therefore attributed it to "supporters"")
7. 02:37, 24 December 2012 (edit summary: "not just legal, also social, cultural, etc")
8. 02:38, 24 December 2012 (edit summary: "better wording")
9. 03:12, 24 December 2012 (edit summary: "removed unnecessary statement to editors")
10. 03:46, 24 December 2012 (edit summary: "sources only show that supporters use the term. until an appropriate source is provided on talk can we please leave it?")

• Diff of warning: here

—- MrX 03:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The warning was 2 days ago. Zaalbar hasn't been properly notified. Just sayin'. Belchfire-TALK 04:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

He notified me on my talk, but I think he decided to provide that diff in order to make a point. Zaalbar (talk) 04:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why you've just got a list of my edits there. This is an edit warring board. I did two reverts on 22 December [145] [146] then one change on 24 December [147] because no appropriate source had been provided in order to remove the word "supporters" since the 22nd and then one revert on 24 December [148]. Zaalbar (talk) 04:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Diff #8 is a self-revert. Diff #9 is removing an HTML comment. This is beginning to look sorta flimsy. Belchfire-TALK 04:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

As I see it, edits 3 and 4 constitute a single revert; while 5, 6 and 10 are also reverts - the rest are not reverts. Hence, there are no more than 3 reverts in a single 24-hour period, and no violation of 3RR. StAnselm (talk) 06:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

3, 4 and 5 are from 22 December and 6, 10 are from 24 December so it's only 3 reverts over 22 - 24 of December. Zaalbar (talk) 12:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. This isn't purely a mathematical exercise. I've blocked Zaalbar for edit-warring, regardless of whether they violated 3RR. The amount of battling in the article is disruptive. Zaalbar has been worse than others, but other editors should be careful. BTW, if you want my count, I'm excluding everything that happened before December 24 for the purpose of analyzing 3RR only, Zaalbar reverted 4x:

1. 00:18
2. two consecutive edits at 02:37 and 02:38
3. 3:12
4. 3:46

Any of you may question my count, but (a) I may or may not respond and (b) I didn't block them for a breach of 3RR anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: Siavash777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [149]

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

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

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

Comments:

The user Siavash777 is in constant breach of this rule by reverting important changes to the article without any basis. Kabirat (talk) 18:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You were both just edit warring on the page - As such, rather than block you both, I've simply protected the page for a week. Use this time wisely to discuss the future direction of the page. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: due to intermediate edits, [156] would be the best version to revert to.

• 1st revert: [157]
• 2nd revert: [158]
• 3rd revert: [159]
• 4th revert: [160]
• 5th revert: [161]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [162]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: All this amounts to asking Humanpublic to drop the stick, which lead to the article closure.

Comments:
Humanpublic is a pov-pushing

) 21:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

How am I supposed to respond to the comment left for me by ReformedArsenal? How is he supposed to respond to me? Can any handful of editors censor a minority just by declaring a discussion "closed" and filing a grievance if he tries to unclose it? I don't get it. Editors who don't think the discussion is interesting can simply ignore it. Why the censorship? I haven't insulted or threatened anyone (unlike Ian T.), although I've gotten a bit terse as my concerns are dismissed with "We've discussed this before and decided you're wrong." Humanpublic (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The same answers have been presented to your same questions over and over and over. Your

personal attacks. Ian.thomson (talk

) 21:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The topic, at the time you and History2007 tried to block it, was about the definition of "peer-review". I haven't refused to accept any sources, I've pointed out they aren't conclusive. All this amounts to you trying to block a discussion you don't like. There is nothing disruptive about a discussion of the term "peer-review", or a comparison of this debate to evolution. If it has been settled to your satisfaction, then it doesn't interest you and you can spend time elsewhere. There is no reason to interfere with someone else's discussion. Humanpublic (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

That has been addressed over and over in the past as well, in discussions you've been linked to before. As has been pointed out before (not that you'll listen this time either)

WP:RS does not require only peer-reviewed sources, but accepts other academic works and even textbooks. Ian.thomson (talk

) 21:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say only peer-reviewed sources are allowed. I asked why there aren't any, which led to a discussion of what is peer-reviewed. As for your insults, I found these comments insulting:

"it's become nothing but mantra chanting for your useless deaf ears" and "no, you are being disruptive just because you can't accept that no one is bowing to your POV-pushing." Humanpublic (talk) 21:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

If you find my descriptions of your behavior insulting, you might want to reconsider your behavior. Have you even considered what it means that pretty much everyone has been asking you to go back and read past discussions, and that multiple and more experienced editors have closed the discussion and asked you to stop? Has it occurred to you that the guidelines and policies being cited regarding your behavior means you are behaving inappropriately? Have you even considered trying to be cooperative? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The 1st edit in that list is 3 days old. For the 2nd (today), two editors had responded to me, and then the discussion was "closed." I just wanted to reply to what they said to me. One of them was History2007, who directed comments at me and then promptly announced the discussion should be closed and I should be blocked for, basically, replying to the comments he addressed at me. Humanpublic (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

are you going to stop this or would you like to be blocked? that is your choice. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Stop what? Saying that a book review is not a peer-review, when somebody doesn't know the difference? Saying that this debate differs from the debate on evolution by lacking peer review and polls? Using the Talk page to talk about my opinion, mostly in response to what others are saying? Or just stop saying those things in this one thread? Do you think these subjects won't come up again? I didn't even initiate this thread. Nor did I initiate the one before it (now archived). This issue has come up in 3 separate threads just in the few months I've been interested in the page. Is Ian T. going to try and shut it down every single time somebody brings it up? Humanpublic (talk) 22:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

All of that, basically. Discussions about the nature of sources in general go to

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ}

22:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. The FORUM link you gave is about original research, which has nothing to do with anything here. My opinion is not irrelevant: I'm an editor discussing the article, and that's what Talk pages are for. Your other links don't make any sense, and mostly apply to editing articles, not merely discussing views on the Talk page. I've never even edited the actual article. Doesn't it strike you as a bit odd for editors to direct comments at me, and threaten me with blocks for wanting to respond? If that's my choice, I'll be blocked. I can live without this site. Humanpublic (talk) 22:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

We've brought up

) 22:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I know. I'm just throwing it in one last time. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus in that Talk page discussion. It does prove the point that Ian T. is insulting and disruptive: "Take your WP:BATTELGROUND attitude and bigoted and unfounded accusations of bias elsewhere, you blind fool. Many of the people involved in this discussion are not Christian, and those who actually look at the sources are not siding with you in your crusade. That you assume that everyone not siding with you is a Christian only shows you're too much of a crusading bigot to contribute anything worthwhile. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)"

He has cnnsistenly tried to shut down a discussion he doesn't like, with insults and archiving ongoing discussions.Humanpublic (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

So bottom line is, you vow to continue? (that's a yes-or-no question) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Per this (not sure why it was removed), I think that's a safe assumption. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Vow to continue what? Pointing out the fact that "book review" and "peer-review" have different meanings? Sure. It's a fact. Expressing the opinion the sources we currently have don't support the article as it currently stands? Sure, that's my opinion. It's also the opinion of several other editors, such as the one who started the thread being censored, and the one (Martin) who started the other thread Ian T. mentioned. Counting me, that's three editors in a discussion of about seven people on this issue. As far as I can tell, Ian is the only one resorting to insults, and History2007's tactic of responding to me and then demanding the discussion be closed deserves no respect. I won't respond here again. Humanpublic (talk) 23:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a yes. Should be more than enough

) 23:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Warned. Too much heat here. The edit that was removed (Ian refers to above) has been restored - it should not have been removed. Humanpublic's behavior has been disruptive and they have clearly edit-warred. That said, there's been no attempt by Humanpublic to edit the article in almost 24 hours. The material at issue has been archived (rather than just collapsed), and to sanction Humanpublic now would be punitive. I have, however, warned the editor about future conduct.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Edits fall under

restrictions and 1rr applies

• 1st revert: 06:42, 25 December 2012
• 2nd revert: 15:38, 24 December 2012

continues an edit war begun a few days earlier

• 3rd revert: 04:51, 20 December 2012
• 4th revert: 03:47, 20 December 2012
• 5th revert:07:17, 19 December 2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [163]

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

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 3 days — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: Unite Against Fascism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 31.54.213.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: 19 Dec
• 2nd revert: 21 Dec
• 3rd revert: 22 Dec
• 4th revert: 22 Dec
• 5th revert: 24 Dec
• 6th revert: 26 Dec
• 7th revert:26 Dec

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Previous issue, multiple discussions on talk page over time. This is a single purpose IP so its more reporting persistent vandalism that edit warring. Semi-protection of the page might be an idea as well ----Snowded ^TALK 07:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

This is a clear case of persistent vandalism by someone with a POV agenda and no regard for accepted Wikipedia protocols. Emeraude (talk) 11:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected six months. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

) 16:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: Jordan Belfort (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Copycat2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [165]

• 1st revert: [166]
• 2nd revert: [167]
• 3rd revert: [168]
• 4th revert: [169]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [170]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [171]

Comments: User has ignored comments by both myself and editor Daniel J Leivick that "former white collar criminal" is poor grammar. This appears to be part of a campaign to downplay Belfort's criminal history, given a number of hagiographic edits. User Copycat2012, and their previous ID Reaction93, have made no edits to any other pages and will not sign their posts.Splorksplorksplorksplork (talk) 01:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Note. This is a content dispute that's more about how to describe the subject than it is about grammar. There was no breach of 3RR. The edit-warring is stale (4 days ago). I would simply close the report except for the fact that Copycat is a new account created by the same person who created Reaction93. Although Copycat admits they are the same, they have not complied with
  WP:DG, and they were blocked in the past as Reaction93 related to this article. At this point, I'd like to hear from Copycat before making any final decision. That said, any other admin is free to do whatever they want without waiting for me or consulting with me.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 02:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

It's only stale because I have been trying to engage Copycat2012 in constructive dialogue rather than simply reverting again. However they seem unwilling to discuss the issue in rational terms. Splorksplorksplorksplork (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Note. I have indefinitely blocked Copycat2012 for making a legal threat. Copycat also reverted on the article. Rather than revert back, I (reluctantly) edited the article to eliminate the "former" characterization as an issue. Hopefully my edit will put that issue to rest. That said, I don't intend to get involved in a dispute about it. If it's not satisfactory to other editors, they can work it out themselves.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: Duchy of Cornwall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: N-HH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: link

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link He already warred me of edit warring so he knew it could come up "(cur | prev) 19:03, 26 December 2012‎ N-HH (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,840 bytes) (-6,458)‎ . . (It says "country" infobox, but regardless it's not a territory either - pls read the article. Your change was reverted, with good reason, so you now need to go to talk, not edit war"

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

Comments:

HIs response is to basically insult me, claim superiority and general indicated that all he will do is edit war. Then makes another edit that he knows is patronising. Spshu (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

As noted on the talk page, your bid to add a country infobox, including details of its "government", to a page about a portfolio of royal estates scattered across the UK is bizarre and totally incorrect. Once I reverted your addition you should have discussed it on the talk page if you were really convinced you had a point. Although you have now posted there a couple of times, you have offered absolutely zero evidence to support your contention that the duchy is a country or territorial unit of the UK (here's a clue: you won't find any) or even that you know what you are talking about when it comes to UK administrative or political affairs. Yes, I have questioned your knowledge in that area, with legitimate reason, and am doing it again now; you have now elected to explicitly call me a "maniac", so I suggest you descend from your high horse. While we both might be edit-warring, it's rather obvious I would guess to most observers who is trying to maintain the accuracy and integrity of info on Wikipedia here. N-HH talk/edits 09:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you prove my point in "so I suggest you descend from your high horse." No it is not clear who is "trying to maintain the accuracy and intergrity of info on Wikipedia here." No, it is you on the high horse with your condesending position. Just because I try not proliferate additional infoboxes by not creating new ones for one offs and use existing infoboxes does not mean that effects the "accuracy and integerity of info on Wikipedia here." The infoboxes are total background stuff that no reader need deal with. Spshu (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected. One of the reverts listed above is your revert; there is no 3RR violation here. Since you both are flipping back and forth, I've protected the page for a few days to allow the conversation on the article's talk page to progress. Please do not perform further reverts until the discussion comes to a consensus. Kuru (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Still he did three reverts thus violated 3RR. And indicated that is an edit warring mode. Spshu (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Three reverts does not violate

WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk

) 22:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: Bavaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 213.195.215.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [172]

• 1st revert: [173]
• 2nd revert: [174]
• 3rd revert: [175]
• 4th revert: [176]
• 5th revert: [177]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [178]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [179]

Comments:
Marginal with respect to 3RR, but definitely edit warring. Favonian (talk) 09:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I protest!, 1)some Saddhiyama deleted "Rv nazi crap". 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Saddhiyama does not anwer me! 3) Favonian is vandal!! PS) Is "Saddhiyama" the same person as "Favonian"?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.195.215.190 (talk) 12:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours. Acroterion (talk) 13:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: Human rights abuses in Kashmir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mehrajmir13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [185][186]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [187]

Comments:
I removed the content as it is pure

) 15:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Also a great deal of that content has been copied and pasted from other wikipedia articles without attribution and as such is a copyvio. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• I had removed the content again per
  WP:COPYVIO. It has again been restored. Darkness Shines (talk
  ) 16:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh I‘m late, what I was supposed to do, my fellow user has already done that by listing all the diffs here. Now comming to the point; the article is not

Wikipedia:OR every statement is backed by a reliable sources. It may be checked though whether the text pertains to the article or not and the diffs be verified that who started reverting the edits and what has been provided in the edit summaries and the talk page also. This user is framing the wrong information as right. He may be stopped from reverting again and again. Thank you.  MehrajMir (Talk)

16:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: Syrian civil war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.178.201.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [188]
• 2nd revert: [189]
• 3rd revert: [190]
• 4th revert: [191]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [192]

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

Comments:

Came across this IP after he edited the NA article, I went to his talk page and noticed he had been given a warning for personal attacks and looked at his contributions, then saw he was editwarring and changing sourced information. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This IP user also made a personal attack here: [193]--

) 17:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Or even more blatantly, here (dec 12): [194] Sopher99 (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Yworo in sequence unalterable the article

talk

18:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

See

talk

) 18:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Yworo is correct. Doncecz, if you continue to edit against en:Wikipedia policy, you will be blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I asked László Kovács, namely was my teacher: László Kovács calls for the use of Slovene and not Hungarian, since he is Slovene writer, author of the Slovene literature and not the Hungarian. The Hungarian laws recognized 13 minoritys in Hungarian with fundamental rights, therefore despite the citizenship its definition is not Hungarian.

18:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

And this is English Wikipedia, and it is our policy to make clear the citizenship of the subject first thing in the lead sentence. If he doesn't like to be Hungarian, why is he still a Hungarian citizen?

talk

) 18:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

But the English wikipedia obviously respects fundamental rights: the Slovene intellectuals of Hungary wish the Slovene denomination.

19:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Declined. This is a malformed report. Putting that aside, it's a content dispute subject to guidelines, not policy. There's been no breach of 3RR, although Yworo has come close. This should be worked out on the article talk page, and Doncsecz, you need to be more civil in your comments. Finally, for such a short article, it is remarkably poorly written.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: [195]

• 1st revert: [196]
• 2nd revert: [197]
• 3rd revert: [198]
• 4th revert: [199]
• 5th revert: [200]
• 6th revert: [201]
• 7th revert: [202]
• 8th revert: [203]
• 9th revert: [204]
• 10th revert: [205]
• 11th revert: [206]
• 12th revert: [207]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [208], [209]

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

Comments:

It's difficult to see where to start with this, but I think I see 12 reverts within 36 hours. The editor is clearly edit warring against multiple others. It's possible that other editors may also have been edit-warring, but not as blatantly as this, and without the aggressive edit summaries. RolandR (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of sixty hours -- tariqabjotu 03:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

• 1st revert: [210]
• 2nd revert: [211]
• 3rd revert: [212]
• 4th revert: [213]
• 5th revert: [214]
• 6th revert: [215]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [216]

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

Comments:
Got to this article from the BLP board, there are BLP violations & copyvio violations in the content being reverted in. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• anyone home? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Apparently not. Might take this to AIV and page protection boards. 99.156.67.118 (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours -- KTC (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Page:

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

• 1st revert: 23:34, 27 December 2012 [217] Reverts this edit by AgadaUrbanit, while removing well sourced content in the process
• 2nd revert: 14:42, 28 December 2012 [218] reverts these 2 edits by Mor2: [219]

This page is under a 1RR limitation. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] Warned by Darkness Shines, and asked to revert: [220] Warned by Mor2: [221] Removes warnings, and claims “IAR”: [222] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [223] – accuses “zionist editors distorting reality]

Comments:
Has been blocked before, just last month, for a 1RR violation on this very article: [224]

• Note. @Itch, your report has merit, but I find your history curious. You have made 7 edits to Wikipedia as this account, 5 of which were on March 30, 2012 (the account was created one day earlier) to P-I articles (not this one), and the last 2 today, one here, and one notifying Sepsis of this discussion. Who are you?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
• Suggestion Since this is a ARBPIA issue and arrising from the ARBPIA remedies, might it be a good idea to refer this discussion to
  WP:AE Hasteur (talk
  ) 20:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
• WP:AE is a bit unnecessary given this is a very straightforward violation of the 1RR on the article. While the reporting user is suspect, the reverts were not to his/her edits, so that's irrelevant to Sepsis II's action. -- tariqabjotu
  21:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

• 1st revert: [225]
• 2nd revert: [226]

• 1st revert: [227]
• 2nd revert: [228]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [229]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [230]

Comments:
I think we have passed the edit warring bar, but if we havent we are really close. I dont think User:Rachesnut will listen to "non-experts" on anything here.

Thelmadatter seems to think she owns the Santa Muerte article and as such has deleted several of my contributions without any rhyme or reason. Moreover she is asserting that as a published author on the topic I shouldn't cite my own book, and is also demanding that I send pages of my book to her as "proof" of the veracity of my contributions. Her dictatorial attitude is absolutely unacceptable and violates the spirit of Wikipedia.purepecha (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: Cinema of the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MervinVillarreal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [231]

• 1st revert: [232]
• 2nd revert: [233]
• 3rd revert: [234]
• 4th revert: [235]
• 5th revert: [236]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [237]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A. My involvement here ceased after my first revert as, at that time, the contentious part of the edit (misuse of non-free files) had been resolved. This has now become an edit war based on the insertion of a tangential free image with a POV caption, and given the user's previous inability to comprehend common sense I'm not wading into a pointless discussion again. User has already been made well aware that 3RR exists, as they have previously been advised to stop in light of an earlier edit war that I did not bring here (diff of that warning). GRAPPLE X 21:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours KTC (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Likewise for User:TheClown90 for the same. KTC (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment Although not directly relating to this page, it should be noticed that this user on two different talk pages I am aware of (Talk:World War Z (film) and Talk:Rockstar Games) is constantly trying to impose his views on editors/article page without thought for previously established consensus or evidence/reasons provided by other editors. On this version of his talk page it specifically says that he is on English Wikipedia to "Change nationality" MisterShiney ✉ 22:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you; it's not really relevant. Mostly what I get out of the user's comments is that his English is very poor, making it hard to interpret just about anything he says.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was just wanting admins to be aware of his disruptive editing. MisterShiney ✉ 22:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: Van Rensselaer (surname) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JGVR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments:
JGVR is absolutely refusing to allow an inline reference, on the grounds that the reference belongs in a different article. Here is a quote from what the very experienced editor

, no understanding of Wikipedia's requirements in terms of style, content, and referencing, and no intention to let anyone touch "his" article" See the talk page for many examples of Voceditenore attempting to reason with JCVR, who never addresses head on the points VdT makes. IMO the time has come for an admin to explain to JGVR what VdT has failed to make JGVR, despite many polite and well reasoned efforts. Maybe there is a COI connection between the user and the warred-over page, which might explain the problems taking an objective view on this. almost-instinct 09:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Only one problem remains... those of us that were involved have come to terms and have had this resolved over 1/2 a day ago

JGVR (talk) 09:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's not true, JCVR. As I said at Talk:Van Rensselaer (surname), I am and another editor are in complete disagreement with you about your refusal to "allow" a highly pertinent and necessary inline citation to an unreferenced article, but you have made it clear that you will continue edit warring to remove it and for entirely spurious reasons. Thus, I have decided not to touch that article again. That is not "coming to terms" or "resolved" at all. Do you plan to revert the next editor who tries to add it? Voceditenore (talk) 13:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

who all agreed in wiping out the entire page (as some would consider defacing) and replace it with the contents of the talk page? or was that the same person who is making assertions with no citations about how suddenly this: Van_(Dutch)#Collation_and_capitalisation No longer applies in America. I am supposed to sit and let such absurdities stay up?

I had been working on an into based on facts not a personal "world view" as one editor seems topersist in invokingJGVR (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

JGVR has opened a DRN thread about this, so I closed it. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 18:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Note. Both JGVR and Voceditenore have edit-warred. However, I am accepting Voce's promise that they will not edit the article again. I have requested a similar promise from JGVR. If they comply, I will close this as "warned".--Bbb23 (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Voc. That said I would appreciate the same agreement with KraxlerJGVR (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you agreeing not to edit the article again, JCVR? Or are you only agreeing no one else can edit the article except you? Voceditenore (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Warned. Kraxler is not involved in the edit war; such a sanction is unwarranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Kraxler is involved but ill agree that is another matter. I do not agree with me not editing it... I am the one who worked the most on it. It is a topic of which I have much awareness of....JGVR (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

nobody seemed to care about it until I put facts in that were agains others' world viewsJGVR (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Note: Tony Greig died earlier today, so the article has seen a lot of editing.

• 1st revert: [238] at 15:48, 29 December 2012, edit summary: Undid revision 530248705 by 121.218.80.238 (talk) per WP:DATE
• 2nd revert: [239] at 16:26, 29 December 2012, edit summary: Undid revision 530251937 by 124.169.52.52 (talk) A reliable and verifiable source needed. Word of mouth is not a source
• 3rd revert: [240] at 17:04, 29 December 2012, edit summary: →‎Lung cancer and death: We have enough sources
• 4th revert: [241] at 17:14, 29 December 2012, edit summary: Undid revision 530255947 by EdChem (talk) There is enough sources, also do not use the US date format
• 5th revert: [242] at 18:22, 29 December 2012, edit summary: Undid revision 530260443 by Kennvido (talk) Like to explain why you replaced them? Also breaking the linking of one cite

These five edits occurred over less than three hours. Four of the five reverts were achieved by pressing the 'undo' link, the other was a manual removal of a reference; all were done without any discussion beyond the edit summary. Note that the second revert incorrectly changed the cause of death, the third revert removed a source because there were too many, and the fourth removed a source that I was only adding in the technical sense, in that the reference was in the article when I started my edit and disappeared only during an edit conflict.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [243] (which was reverted within one minute)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I posted a message about reverting my edit on Bidgee's user talk page; it was removed four minutes later with the summary "How about look at your own actions before questioning others?"

Comments:

I realise that these reversions do not all relate to the same text and that, followiung the death of Greig, there are many editors making changes to the article. My main concern is not the technical 3RR violation but rather with Bidgee's attitude to other editors. My edit removed a duplicate reference from the article, altered a cite web reference to cite news for a newspaper article, and added a cross-ref to the lede, plus some minor copy editing. I added no reference, just keeping those that were in the article when I began my edit (one disappeared during my editing in an edit conflict). It was reverted because of a US date format, re-adding to the article an incorrect spelling of Greig. Bidgee's response to my comment on his or her talk page indicated a lack of willingness to discuss any concern. This led me to investigate Bidgee's edit history, where I found:

• by my count, 34 of Bidgee's previous 50 edits were reverts of some sort, and looking further back Bidgee appears to have a habit of reverting entire edits rather than editing a part with which she or he disagrees
• Bidgee's block log includes blocks in 2012 for 3RR violations June 29) and edit warring (November 5) - the second block was undone after review
• A block in December 2010 was for "Disruptive editing: warned regarding use of reverts, continued to do so"

I conclude that Bidgee has a history of reverting too readily, and I am hoping that an administrator might try to engage with her or him to act in a more collegial manner. The revert of my talk page post (which I admit might have been more elegantly expressed) indicates that an approach from me would likely be counter-productive. I do not ask for a block, though I believe 3RR has been broken, but for Bidgee to be less quick to hit undo and more willing to discuss. Of course, I am open to comments / criticisms of my own actions. EdChem (talk) 11:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Not blocked Bidgee technically violated 3RR, but this isn't the kind of problem that the rule or the prohibition of edit-warring was designed to prevent. I've been on the receiving end of someone who reverts an entire edit when they only have a problem with one part, but these are some minor manifestations of that issue that are more carelessness than intentional disregard. You don't exactly help your case either when you include in your report fairly uncontestable reverts, like putting the date format in line with our manual of style. So, in short, has he been doing a lot of reverting? Yes. Has he been reverting too broadly? Probably. Is this disruptive? Probably not. Should he be blocked? No. -- tariqabjotu 15:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

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

User DemirBajraktarevic is constantly removing refs as he don't likes this info. He called my editing "lying" (see talk page). Also, I wrote this article months ago, and I added that Brkić (the guy in the article) is an atheist, thoguh I removed this info as I have no proper source (I assumed his an atheist since he was a communist, but it is said that for religon one needs to have a source to add it in an infobox). Bajraktarevic once again reverted me for no good reason. Now, he was reverting my edits on this page for days (see history). I reported him few times and I was myself blocked as well (since I made two revers also previously). Now, I won't revert him, but insted I expect from him to revert himself, as there is no good reason for him to remove sourced info (there are 4 refs for this info). --Wüstenfuchs 12:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

Did you two tried to talk, for example? Some of his reverts are well founded, you cannot add this without sources, that is obvious. You MUST use sources for this, or you both may be blocked (again) for edit warring in ARBMAC area. I urge you to start talking, and stop writing on AN/I... --WhiteWriter^speaks 12:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

WW, that's completely other article. I only forgot to source it, I later did so. Let's keep discussion on this issue only. --Wüstenfuchs 14:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected. Both of you were blocked (by me) for one week for edit-warring on this article, among other things. Now you (Wustenfuchs) come back first and make two consecutive edits, essentially restoring the article to the way you wanted it (not to mention the evasion during the block). Demir reverts you, not twice but only once in two consecutive edits, just as you did. And now you come here because you expect Demir to revert himself? And where is the lying comment? Putting aside the fact that you've included no diffs for this report, at least provide a diff when you accuse another editor of calling you a liar. I've protected the article for one week. There's virtually no activity on the article except the two of you. Think of it as protecting you from yourselves. If you can't work out your differences, I suggest that both of you walk away from the article and let others improve it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aminul802 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [244]
• 2nd revert: [245]
• 3rd revert: [246]
• 4th revert: [247]
• 5th revert: [248]
• 6th revert: [249]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [250]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [251][252]

Comments:
Relevant discussions may be found here [253] and here [254]. Darkness Shines and myself also have a history. The last time, it was I who complained that he had been edit warring [255]. The resolution was that we'd both exhibited such behavior, which I accepted. This time, there is a discussion context. I look forward to your advice on how i should conduct myself in such situations in the future. Thanks! Aminul802 (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

This is the previous EW report.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

This situation could have been averted if Darknessshines had removed only the name of a person instead of simply (and repeatedly) reverting Aminul's entire addition to the article; here's how things stand currently, and this is how Darknessshines could have dealt with the BLP angle. There's been a lack of constructive engagement all-round here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You forget I also thought there was a linkvio issue as well as BLP concerns. Please do not put this guys constant refusal to listen to me back onto me. I have tried repeatedly to discuss issues with him and get brushed off. I am now having to rewrite that bloody article in userspace so it at least has a semblance of NPOV and accuracy in it. Burt hell, just blame me for it. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

That's an unfair characterization. I've not been brushing you off. I've been asking for further evidence every time that something has been disputed, whether in various talk pages, or edit summaries. I've frequently felt brushed off by you, when you refuse respond to my calls to discuss contentious topics. I think if you're having to rewrite the article in your own talk page, it will only display the POV that I consider you to have, and not an NPOV that is portrayed in respectable international media--something you can only achieve if you make an effort to ignore some of the latest developments. I think it's far more constructive for us both to work on the current article, as we will balance each other out when either one of us inadvertently does not contribute from an NPOV. Aminul802 (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Rubbish, I told you when you first started editing what the estimate for rape victims are as Bergman got it so wrong, a few weeks ago you added 25k rape victims to the article again. You ignore everything I tell you. Your entire approach is to put as much negative info in the lede as possible. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I also told you about the linkvios[256], yet you kept restoring them. So do not even try to say you do not brush me off. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Note. Much as I'm sure we're all vastly entertained by this vitriol, are the parties satisfied with the current state of the article? So much is mixed up in this (present and past) it's hard to sort out, but it appears that Aminul has restored the quote from the FP article, not named the ambassador, and not linked to the cable itself. If that's not acceptable to everyone, my inclination is to lock the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Tell me, are you satisfied with the state of that article? It's an embarrassment. But I am not touching it, as I said I am rewriting it. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Please, DS, I'm not talking about the entire article, just the latest E-W dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Now neutral of you I told you, I am not touching it for now so you need not lock it if that is what is worrying you. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Warned. The current dispute is apparently over. Rather than meting out arguably punitive blocks for edit-warring, this is a warning to both editors that future edit-warring, even if it doesn't rise to the level of a breach of
  WP:3RR, may be met with a block without notice.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 19:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear All, DS has taken it upon himself the rewrite the article. I've been away, so i wasn't able to comment here that the previous state of the article was much more to my liking. I have noted what I think of DS' unilateral rewrite here: [257]. Is it okay for me to undo his rewrite and return to the older article so that we may simply work on improving that? I'm sorry that this is constantly returning here. I would like your advice on how I should proceed. Many thanks! Aminul802 (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: Robert Agostinelli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 38.104.90.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [258]
• 2nd revert: [259]
• 3rd revert: [260]
• 4th revert: [261]

Page protected. Semi-protection for five days.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: Rhône Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 38.104.90.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [262]
• 2nd revert: [263]
• 3rd revert: [264]
• 4th revert: [265]
• 5th revert: [266]
• 6th revert: [267]

Page protected. Semi-protection for five days (related to report above). I suggest you go to the talk page to work out the content dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: The Young Turks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beloki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The Young Turks

• 15:34, December 29, 2012: "your'e a fucking selective reporting idiot. ban me if you want you want to stop me you censoring fuck"
• 17:01, December 29, 2012: "Undid revision 530355546 by Trinitresque (talk) the association is by Cenk himself. He said it on TYT live stream. what better source do you need?"]

Ana Kasparian

• 15:06, December 29, 2012: "Undid revision 530337702 by CT Cooper (talk) waht the hell man?? the name originated where it originated. reverting it would be selectively misinforming people. the info is important."
• 15:35, December 29, 2012: "Undid revision 530346080 by CT Cooper (talk) mr selective reporting strikes again."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 15:41, December 29, 2012

Comments: No violation of 3rr (or close). However, the user has a history of edit warring, and is now doing so across two articles with abrasive edit summaries which violate NPA. In doing so, he's trying to force through gross violations of BLP (see this revert) without sources. His last revert took place some time after he was warned for EW. Given the comments he's made, I think he's likely to continue, and it seems prudent for another admin to step in. A short block or another warning/talk would be helpful.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of sixteen hours for the incivility, not the edit-warring. -- tariqabjotu 04:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: State of Palestine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mor2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [268]

• 1st revert: [269]
• 2nd revert: [270]

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

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

Comments:

Mor2 has been blocked twice before for ARBPIA 1RR violations (once incorrectly so); it's safe to assume the editor is familiar with the 1RR restriction that applies here. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• As I just said replied to Malik Shabazz[272]. My violation is unintentional. If necessary I will self revert and reinstate to avoid the 2 hour lap.--Mor2 (talk) 05:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I have self reverted due to another request.--Mor2 (talk) 06:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Mor2 has self-reverted and I've withdrawn the complaint. 06:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malik Shabazz (talk • contribs)

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

Humanism

• December 28 00:32: "-POV and undue weight. We dont need detailed discussion of one random modern organization in an article on a philosophical term primarily referring to the renaissance"
• December 28 11:31: "cleanup"
• December 28 17:24: "rv deterioration of article quality, POV pushing on behalf of single organization, and reintroduction of corrected errors. Make yourself familiar with WP:LEAD, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE"
• December 29 18:02 "rm POV, UNDUE, and first paragraph is already too long"
• December 29 18:56 "rv POV pushing"

Template:Humanism

• December 28 00:21: "illustrating a template on humanism, a term encompassing a multitude of religious and non-religious worldviews, with a logo of a modern atheist organisation is grossly inappropriate"
• December 29 17:45 "cleanup POV pushing"
• December 29 18:12 "rv POV pushing. Take your organization logo to your own website."
• December 29 19:01 "rv POV pushing"

Outline of humanism

• December 27 23:35 "grossly inaccurate, POV and unencyclopedic attempt at an article. Better to start from scratch if somebody wants to." (initial blanking of article)
• December 29 17:48 "this is not an outline of humanism, just POV pushing" (this was the initial add of the POV tag)
• December 29 18:17

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: December 28 18:00 User saw and removed warning: December 28 22:41

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Humanism talk page, Template:Humanism, User_talk:Jeannedeba

Comments: This user is edit warring on a variety of humanism related pages. He's been warned, and these issues have been discussed with him by a variety of editors, but he won't stop being combative or edit warring. Any help would be appreciated.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I support Jess on this. There are unresolved content issues here; the problem is that, at this stage, Jeannedeba seems to be in a minority of one in each case, and is insistent on repeatedly reverting to versions of the text for which there is no support, despite efforts by Jess and myself to find compromise forms of wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I'm reading your report, but I'm a little annoyed that some of the links you provided are not correct. For example, the first reverts under both Humanism and Template:Humanism have the wrong target URLs and the wrong times (later than they should be). Also, times should be provided in UTC. -- tariqabjotu 04:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of twenty-four hours -- tariqabjotu 06:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the times should be in UTC but are not. I usually use the 3rr helper tool, which is currently offline. I'll try to remember to get the UTC time the next time I make a report manually. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 07:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: XLR8TION (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [273]
• 2nd revert: [274]
• 3rd revert: [275]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [276], which he immediately removed [277]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [278]

Comments:
This user refuses to discuss anything.--

17:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, he have been blocked for numerous reasons. [279] including for Personal attacks or harassment, Violation of the three-revert rule.--

18:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Although I have only been tangentially involved in the discussion and haven't edited the article, It certainly appears to me that a consensus has been reached as to the definition of politician and XLR8TION is simply

talk

) 18:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that's a better description of his behavior. Should I request an

^talk

18:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: Elazar Shach (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 194.146.213.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [280]
• 2nd revert: [281]
• 3rd revert: [282]
• 4th revert: [283]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [284], [285]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Elazar_Shach#Adin_Steinsaltz

Comments:
User first came with a hateful post [286]. Then I forced him to the talkpage, but after each time he posts there he thinks he now has the right to revert again. He does not understand the core Wikipedia principle of

) 18:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not correct. I removed information which clearly is not allowed by policy of BLP and VERIFY and also there was not ever any consensus that I can see to leave it there. As I explain on the article talk section, the BLP says very clearly that this type of information must be with a strong source or else should be removed which is what I have done.--194.146.213.16 (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Both the IP and Debresser are warned not to revert again until a consensus is found about the sources. The dispute is about whether *other rabbis* besides Elazar Schach placed a ban on Steinsaltz's works in 1989. The IP does not deny that Schach condemned the translation but thinks it is a BLP violation to name the other rabbis as sharing his view. I have the article from the "Printing the Talmud" work, page 137, that clearly makes this statement about a whole group of rabbis including Schach and says that the information comes from the English edition of
  WP:BLP/N. Perhaps someone can get hold of the 1989 article in Yated Ne'eman. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 04:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you EdJohnston for reviewing this complaint. I will post your conclusion on the talkpage. May I say I am a bit surprised to see that you decided to address the content issue rather than the behavioral one. I was under the impression that this noticeboard functions for the latter, that is the implementation of the 3RR and other edit war rules. Debresser (talk) 08:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The IP editor was claiming a BLP justification, based on the article 'defaming' the rabbis other than Schach for saying that they banned Steinsaltz's work. The Yated Ne'eman issue is said to contain actual letters from the other rabbis, so my guess is that the IP's argument will collapse after the complete sources are found. EdJohnston (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: Mor2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [287]
• 2nd revert: [288]
• 3rd revert: [289]

Comments: The account has been used to break 1RR, and was blocked for the offenses, twice already on this very article. This is the third time.

So you come off a block and figure payback? Those diffs are two days old, preventative not punative. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected for a period of four days. These edits are a bit old. Nevertheless, since this posting, there has been a flurry of reverts, and so I've protected the article for four days. -- tariqabjotu 23:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It is clear you are not a neutral administrator, another editor I never wish to speak with. Sepsis II (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: Mark Lane (author) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Xenophrenic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [290]
• 2nd revert: [291]
• 3rd revert: [292]
• 4th revert: [293]
• 5th revert: [294]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (Link to Talk section) [296]

Comments:
The article history shows that both parties are guilty, and sure enough... the other party has also been warned: [297]

I plead no contest to breaking the rules, too, and will accept a temp ban if admins believe it is warranted. I brought up the edit issue at

) 02:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

There has indeed been some back & forth in the article (multiple reverts by Location, Xenophrenic and Guy Macon) over the past 3 days since

Location's first edit. While there have been no actual breaches of 3RR by anyone involved, there's certainly been a tendency (by all parties) to prematurely implement changes in the article before all issues have been resolved and consensus reached. For my part, I'm stepping away from the article until Jan. 2 when I can obtain one of the obscure sources we're squabbling over from a local library, and hopefully we'll have received uninvolved input from WP:RSN by then, too. Xenophrenic (talk

) 02:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• If everyone "gets it" and will willingly step back a little, I don't see any point in taking any action. Being willing to leave an article in a non-preferred state until you can put your hands on a source, and admitting culpability shows a professional attitude. Just use the talk page more and be patient, it will all work out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Protected three days. Since an IP reverted again after Xenophrenic's last, it looks like not all parties have agreed to step back. There seems to be a battle royal over whether the Warren Commission can be described as 'ignoring' some witnesses. Making that assertion in Wikipedia's voice looks like an invitation for trouble. Xenophrenic is a long-time editor so I'm surprised by his persistence at User talk:Xenophrenic#Talk pages and personal attacks. There are safer ways of presenting the facts and critical opinions about the Warren commission which I'm sure could be found through negotiation. EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I plead .. um .. spiked eggnog. A one word revert to bring the article text in line with the cited source, and suddenly it's "quick, buttress the defenses against incomming fringe attack!" I'm just making sure they dot their I's and cross their T's as far as editing and sources policy goes. Despite disagreements between you and I, Ed, you've always given me a fair shake (even while sternly shaking me up). Thanks for that. Here's wishing you a very fine New Year. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The IP's edit merely reflected talk page consensus. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 02:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Xenophrenic is still edit warring, this time in an attempt to edit other people's talk page comments:

• 1st revert: [298]

• 1st revert: [299]

• 2nd revert: [300]

• 3nd revert: [301]

• 4th revert: [302]

• 5th revert: [303]

I consider this to be vandalism of my comments and have treated it accordingly.

More warnings:[304][305][306][307][308]

I believe that editing my own comments after someone has modified them is exempt from 3RR (I was careful to always reinsert his comments after rolling back the vandalism.[309] except when he vandalized my comments again while I was cutting and pasting.) If I am wrong about this good-faith belief that 3RR does not apply to my own comments, please let me know and it won't happen again. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You are exempt from 3RR only on your own user talk, not on article talk pages. I suggest that both of you stop reverting at

WP:3RR is a policy. If an admin became sufficiently concerned, they could block either of you for disruptive editing. At present, neither of you appears to be setting a good example. EdJohnston (talk

) 04:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I will take that as a fair warning and will take it to heart -- it won't happen again. I apologize for misinterpreting Wikipedia policy on this, and thank you for the clarification. I am also unwatching this page, the article in question, and all associated user talk pages. Again, sorry about that. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Addition of contested content: [310]

• 1st revert: [311]
• 2nd revert: [312]
• 3rd revert: [313]
• 4th revert: [314]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [315] (the second warning)

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

Comments:
This user started out editing anonymously from Leicester, England with two different IPs from the same ISP. He then registered the account

) 17:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

As to the first charge: I have always in the past edited WP anonymously. After Mathsci reverted my edit to the Marseille article I registered the account HPotato to make it easier to discuss things on the talk page, and have subsequently used this for all edits (the charge seems to be that I am engaged in some form of sockpuppetry).

As to the second: a demographic forecast does not constitute speculation as I pointed out on the talk page.

Thirdly, the BBC and National Geopgraphic are reliable sources. If demographers had not forecast that Marseille will become a majority Muslim city the BBC would not have reported it. And my edit does not state that Marseille will become a majority Muslim city, only that this has been predicted.

Fourthly, the section of the article on immigration is itself far from neutral: there's no mention of the recent unrest in Marseille, for instance.

Finally, I have at no time made any threatening remarks whatsoever to Mathsci, either with this account or anonymously. If he can't provide reasonable evidence that I've done so he should withdraw the accusation. HPotato (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

HPotato has edit-warred to add contentious content to a neutral article that violates

WP:RS by both Dr.K. and me, but has so far not done so. There is no sign that he will not continue revert-warring against consensus (see edit summary in 3rd revert). Mathsci (talk

) 20:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours for 3RR violation. Mathsci's identification of the two Leicester IPs sounds correct. Though HPotato replied here, he did not apologize and made no agreement to stop the war. EdJohnston (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Ed. I think that under the circumstances your block was correct. It is unfortunate it had to come to that. I support Mathsci's analysis above as accurately reflecting the situation. Happy New Year by the way. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: [318]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (Two 3RR warnings here)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Below) Diff of attemtp to resolve dispute on at User talk:MeasureIT: [319]. (Note - this diuscussion invovled more than one article).

The reverter used the article

when used in conjunction with the reverter's Talk Page were sufficient. Each of my changes were attempts to comply with the reverter's requests.

Comments:

) and elsewhere.

Martinvl (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I have not made more than 3 reverts in 24 hours to the article in question. The edit referenced as "1st revert" above was not performed by me, that was a reversion by User:Martinvl. The edit referenced as "3rd revert" above was the addition of an "irrelevant citation" tag and not a reversion at all. Before my last edit to that article I counted 3 reverts by Martinvl (indeed I warned him about it here) and 2 by me. I think this a false accusation against me. MeasureIT (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Since this posting, User:MeasureIT posted a request on Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard without notifying me, even though that noticeboard demands "If you mention specific editors, please notify them". He did not mention me by name, but as "another editor", which in my view does not excuse his failure to notify me. Martinvl (talk) 09:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: Multiple blanket reverts on Humanism

• 1st revert[320] - disruptive blanket revert of version agreed upon by the two uninvolved editors (who are not here to promote their organization)
• 2dn revert[321] - another disruptive blanket revert
• 3rd revert[322] - and another disruptive blanket revert, reinstating spelling mistakes and obvious errors
• 4th revert[323] - and another disruptive blanket revert, including removal of sourced content.

This user appears to be a highly disruptive POV warrior who routinely reverts edits by any other user than himself on humanism and related articles. His edits are promotional and grossly POV, as pointed out by multiple users. He seems to insist that he

the article and that he and only he has the right to add content (without any consensus) or remove content (without any consensus), and enforces this by disruptive editwarring and outright vandalism (including removal of POV tag from article whose neutrality is disputed by multiple users). He has been disruptively edit-warring on this article for days now. His edits have been explicitly rejected on the talk page by multiple users.

Note his disruptive wikilawyering and double standard in his edit summaries, insisting that others have to obtain

) 05:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments: Jeannedeba is fresh off a block for edit warring on Humanism and related articles. Her first edit off the block was to call the blocking admin "a disruptive troll", her second to file this report against the user who had reported her, and her third to continue to edit war. Jeannedeba's accusations above are obviously baseless, but feel free to check the bottom 2 sections of Talk:Humanism if there's any doubt.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You seem to fail to understand Wikipedia:Competence is required, and you are the only one edit-warring on humanism. I see 4(!) blanket reverts of the article from your part, no other user has made 4 blanket reverts of all work by other users, and your disruption to this article needs to stop. You are not allowed to remove a POV tag, when there are two users (including you) promoting one version and two users agreeing it is POV. You continue making false allegations and being disingenuous as well, I have not reverted anything. Adding a POV tag is unrelated from the edits before (the article is still POV) and excempt from 3RR. Removal of the tag on the other hand counts as vandalism, as it explicitly says that you cannot remove it without consensus. Jeannedeba (talk) 06:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment.

) 11:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• No violation. This is blatant tit-for-tat grasping at straws. A block at this point would be punitive, rather than preventative, and I don't believe, based on the talk pages and the evidence presented in the previous AN3 report, that Mann jess is the disruptive party here. -- tariqabjotu 14:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [324]

• 1st revert: [325]
• 2nd revert: [326]
• 3rd revert: [327]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [328]

Link of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Contras#Estimate on contras' victims

Comments: No 3RR till now, but close to. Stumink not taking part in discussion. --Mallexikon (talk) 04:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Stumink is correct. Being an American is not a conflict of interest.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course not. Only if you're an American political scientist and take a pro-American stance in a conflict where America is one of the adversaries. But that's not the point here. The point is that Stumink is edit warring instead of taking part in the discussion. --Mallexikon (talk) 08:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

You reverted me one more time than i did so you have edit warred more than I have and you have failed to use the talk since are edit war started. I have explained clearly in the edit summaries why you're version was POV. You cant just say the figure is controversial because he is pro American. This is OR. You do not know whether or not he is pro-contra. Anyway this is still in the wrong section and I can't be bothered continuing this. It will do as it is now. Stumink (talk) 09:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Result: No action. It does not appear that Mallexikon and Stumink are still reverting each other. EdJohnston (talk) 05:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Page: Michael Slive (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 184.183.190.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [329]

• 1st revert: [330]
• 2nd revert: [331]
• 3rd revert: [332]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [333]

Comments:
Has been removing the "Controversy" section on the listed page. I've asked him to take it to the Talk page for discussion, but to no avail. You'll see the first edit is actually him replacing the section with an editorial. Honestly, the controversy section looks like it could use a bit of NPOV tidying, but I don't think that purging outright is the answer, especially since the citations on the removed info appears to be legit. InShaneee (talk) 07:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The IP has [334] again since this was posted, with a somewhat rudely dismissive edit summary, and at the moment is still refusing calls to discuss with other users. I should also clarify, I know nothing about this page; I just came across it on RC patrol. Therefore, I'm not going to be a ton of help correcting the content, nor do I really have any stake in the outcome. InShaneee (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two months. More than IP has been constantly removing sourced information (critical of commissioner Michael Slive) from the article without participating on Talk. Protection can be lifted if consensus is reached. It is still possible that the information doesn't belong but consensus is needed to decide that. EdJohnston (talk) 05:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)