Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive215

Page:

Citizens – Party of the Citizenry

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]
5. [6]

Spanish unionism

Previous version reverted to: [7]

Diffs of the reverts:

1. [8]
2. [9]
3. [10]
4. [11]
5. [12]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

I'm not part of this conflict, I just observed it. (Actually User:4idaho asked me to have a look and maybe do something about it) I invited her to start a discussion, but it seems that she has not yet found the time to do it. --RJFF (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

• Declined This seems to be an editor acting in good faith, so I'm hesitant to block. There's not a technical violation on
  Citizens – Party of the Citizenry, and the edit summaries on Spanish unionism seem to indicate that the user would be willing to discuss. I've left a note on their talk page encouraging them to do that; if they continue edit warring, a block will be in order, but I think we should be able to avoid that. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions}
  ) 18:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll also try to talk it out on Talk on Citizens - Party of the Citizenry, but RJFF is correct I haven't had the time yet. --4idaho (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Page: Hans-Hermann Hoppe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: SPECIFICO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Steeletrap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Edit warring (again) by SPECIFICO

1. [14] (history: [15] [16] [17] [18])

In deny of discussion about CV references by SPECIFICO

1. [19]

Reject of talk page discussions about BLP violations and by Steeletrap (and innaccurate use of the talk page as anti-Hoppe phamflets)

1. Edit warring [20] >> [21] (history: [22], [23])
2. [24] >> [25]

Comments:
I denunce

I removed the passage in question because it misrepresents Hoppe's view. Specifically, the passage claims that Hoppe's remarks regarding immigration "[are] not an argument against immigration but rather against the welfare state". While the quoted statement was indeed made by Hoppe, it does not reflect his position on immigration; in fact, it is his paraphrase of a criticism of his view. (According to that criticism, Hoppe's logic only implies that the welfare state should be abolished. Hoppe disagrees, thinking it implies a case against immigration.) That passage should be deleted because it misrepresents Hoppe as someone who does not advocate restrictions on immigration, when in fact he clearly and emphatically does advocate such restrictions, as can be seen through a quick google or in the RS cited here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Hermann_Hoppe#Views_on_immigration)

As to the material I added, it is abundantly well-sourced and no argument has been made regarding specific violations of BLP therein; it has simply been deleted wholesale by Sageo with vague or nonexistent justifications. Steeletrap (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Please also note that two of Sageo's "four" links of "Edit warring" on my part (133/136) refer the same diff. So he really only provides three examples of alleged "edit warring." Steeletrap (talk) 03:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

You have deny the objections in talk page and make editions by your way without listening other voices warning about subjective use of cites, if that is a systematic practice that could be consider sabotage. BLP violations are also about ACLU-UNLV issue. You have been invited to create a previus redaction in talk page before add more information in the sections, other editors don't have deny the posibility of change the section. But you deny discussions and continue reverting and adding content by yourself. --Sageo (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Outside comment: This looks like a garden variety content dispute with a bit of reverting on both sides, but with progress still happening. Discussion is happening on the talk page, and it is not overly contentious, so it's all good. Actually, if anyone has been reverting too much and
  WP:POINT. LK (talk
  ) 04:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Along similar lines, it is worth noting that Sageo has been given a formal warning for his conduct on the wikipedia entry in question. (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Sageo_reported_by_User:SPECIFICO_.28Result:_Warned.29) Steeletrap (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I know I'm not enough skillfull in Discussions in this Wikipedia, this is not my environment. But I trust that another community editors checking the attitudes will concern of what is happening, I trust in the wisdom of the most experienced. I'm not asking for blokcing anyone, what I want to notify is that the same user that denounce me, SPECIFICO, later he still do edition war (the first diff I provided is later of my warning). Also Steeeletrap still do it a edition war (or a in the way to do it) later of my warning. So, what are we talking about? Anyway I recognize I have to read more of the own policies of this Wikipedia to fit another causals, but still is clear to me that the edition war continued in two times of may 23 (24 may in UTC 0): philosopher/economist issue by SPECIFICO, and inmigration issue by Steeletrap. --Sageo (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

There are serious, long-term and repeated problems with User:Steeletrap's editing on the article. I will be bringing an extremely long list of repeated violations and repeated warnings at BLP Noticeboard on Tuesday. I just left my second warning (if not third) at his/her talk page at this diff. (Unless WP:Ani is more appropriate place?) I'm still trying to catch up on the article and the talk page with all the issues of the last 24 hours. For example: Talk:Hans-Hermann_Hoppe#Continuing_misuse_of_primary_sources...

a bit later: having looked at both Specifico and Steeletrap's talk page discussions today, I can see that they are making all sorts of defamatory allegations and speculations based on non WP:RS sources and cherry picked quotes. As I said at this diff: This section makes it very clear that the intent is to synthesize defamatory material about Hoppe, per Hook or by crook. I don't even know how many stupid/nasty things he's actually said, because of all the BLP violations trying to turn Bibliomancy into PhD theses, or whatever analogy works for you. The problem here may go beyond mere POV distain for Hoppe into an actual WP:COI in that both editors as academics have gone into detail about their academic distain for one group of Austrian economists and economic writers. (A bunch of examples at (this talk page deletion diff). This "academic superiority" attitude carries over into their habit of taking any mention of or warning about various policies they are violating and claiming it is a baseless personal attacks. I'll put it all in the BLP complaint, but it's all pretty obvious to any admin who wants to take a look now.

Ok, I've put warning notices about defamatory allegations and speculations based on non WP:RS sources and cherry picked quotes on both users talk pages and removed four sections of defamatory material from the talk page, after looking at the BLP notice on top of the talk page. They'll probably put it back, but here's the diff of the four sections that are overwhelmingly of defamatory nature'. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 23:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Carol's inflammatory yet completely vague chargers against SPECIFICO and myself should be contextualized by her consistent violations of WP guidelines through her numerous personal personal attacks toward other users. Here is just a sampling of the evidence. Carol has mocked my capacities for academics (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LewRockwell.com&diff=prev&oldid=553662712), accused user SPECIFICO and myself of sexism (see:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carolmooredc&diff=553822485&oldid=553821981 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carolmooredc&diff=553843792&oldid=553842400), and claimed that I am intentionally trying to violate the rules of Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=554006883.) I am happy to detail more of her copious collection of PAs if prompted, as they have continued ceaselessly to this day. Steeletrap (talk) 03:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing by User:SPECIFICO: Another editor posted RfC: Should the section title for Academic freedom controversy be changed?. Despite this ongoing WP:ANI, tonight User:SPECIFICO (see May 24th edits) immediately posted a notice to 10 Wikiprojects with the very biased ("Campaigning") title →‎RfC on anti-gay bias and academic freedom: new section). (See example here) These projects include Human rights, Universities, Biography/Science and academia, Investment, Economics, Sexology and sexuality, LGBT studies, Sociology, Psychology, Biography/Politics and government. I have asked him to retitle them properly. User:SPECIFICO is very much aware of the policy having warned me here about it after I posted an announcement to just one wikiproject. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 03:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Update: The user who posted the RfC went to all the postings and made them neutral, which s/he should not have had to do. I assume Specifico is on vacation. I have tagged my concerns that two users who came as a result were canvassed. I realize this is not a very well formatted series of complaints and in fact does not include some of the biggest problems and offenses which I'm saving for a more appropriate forum. But admins should keep it all in mind. Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I am the editor that posted the RfC and I initiated the initial talk page thread. And I am the one who went and changed the Project talk page notices. In my opinion, the issue as to canvassing is closed. But tagging the non-involved editor comments on the RfC as "canvassed" is not appropriate. One editor saw the RfC on a project page. I believe the other editor follows the particular article and/or other editor contributions. There was no direct contact on those two editor talk pages. The canvassed tags should be removed. (And as this particular EW notice has gone off the rails, it should be closed.) – S. Rich (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I went to WP:Canvassing and they suggested that as an option. Now I can see that there needs to be more guidance on what happens next. How are the people tagged supposed to respond? But it is not up to other editors to explain for them. Also, if there comments had been more neutral I probably would have not tagged them. But both were in the vein of the campaigning posting. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 16:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean if an editor (who was not canvassed) makes a comment, and then gets tagged as possibly canvassed, should then have to make a further comment saying "I was not canvassed"? In this particular case, the two editors who made comments were not canvassed. Posting the tag in itself has AGF implications. The best thing it remove the tags with a mea culpa in the edit summary. Just because they are fast on the draw to agree with one side or the other does not mean the non-canvassing influenced them. – S. Rich (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Warned. I see a technical
  WP:3RR violation by Steeletrap on May 24. However, I don't intend to block him for it given the amazing number of contentious claims by so many about this article and the fact that he hasn't edited since. I am also taking into account the warning against Sageo in the report earlier on this page. That said, Steeletrap is warned that if he continues to revert in the article, he may be blocked without notice. As for the non-edit-warring claims, please take it somewhere else. It doesn't belong here.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 16:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Page: Rob Ford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: May122013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [26]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [27]
2. [28]
3. [29]
4. [30]
5. [31]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Lots of discussion on Talk:Rob Ford, multiple sections

Comments: This user is edit warring to remove negative content about the subject which has been widely reported in the media, under the claim that it is a hoax, with no evidence to back it up. Claiming it is a hoax, the user is continuing to remove it despite clear consensus that it should remain, and clearly intends to continue this behavior as evidenced by his/her claim that this is "exempt" from 3RR. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is clearly one where

Wikipedia:BLP/N#Rob_Ford_-Inclusion_of_non-available_video_indications_that_the_mayor_smoked_crack_cocaine._The_.22news.22_about_this_only_came_out_5_days_ago. shows that the issue is indeed discussed at the BLP noticeboard, with substantial comment that this is, indeed, a BLP issue. If so, then the 3RR "exemption" may indeed exist, contrary to assertions otherwise. Collect (talk

) 17:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• No violation When the best secondary source admit that they cannot verify the authenticity of this video, BLP probably applies, and thus May is exempt from 3RR. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

That is a bizarre interpretation of BLP. The article is merely reporting what mainstream media say, not claiming that the video is authentic. TFD (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It is absolutely not a BLP violation to include material widely covered in secondary sources. The edit warrior has continued to edit war, so I've the latest revision and ask you to reconsider. As has been demonstrated on the talk page, this user is a conservative pushing a POV based on political ideology. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that it is not a BLP violation, as addressed at

WP:WELLKNOWN. Even The New York Times and the BBC have covered this scandal. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)}

19:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Allegations of felonies are, indeed, contentious claims of a crime per

WP:BLP whih is the only question to be answered here. Collect (talk

) 19:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I've replied

here. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions}

) 09:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Page:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [33]
2. [34]
3. [35]
4. [36]

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

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

Comments:

Not exactly a straight edit war - the user is repeatedly adding inappropriate links and refs into the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

While the links were definitely inappropriate, this is not a case of edit warring, in my opinion; furthermore, this guy is a newbie and could profit more from having the rules explained to him rather than being blocked. I suggest you inform him of our policy on inappropriate links and, if he perseveres, report him to ANI. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Page: Blue Is the Warmest Colour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Film Fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [38]
2. [39]
3. [40]
4. [41]
5. [42]

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

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

Comments:

Both myself and User:Barney the barney barney have titled the article Colour and not Color as per the film poster and Cannes website. FilmFan picks random US reviews, which of course will use color as the source for the title and has reverted both of us multiple times. He has been warned on his talkpage, but just blanks his talkpage. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing random about my constant reverting. I reverted first so you should have found consensus before changing to COLOUR again. On Wikipedia we use the title most used in the English-speaking world for foreign films

WP:NCF, not the title used on a French website or on a British poster. Film Fan

10:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

We need to get the consensus first, before you revert edits five or six time to get your

point across. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead}

10:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

No. When a controversial edit is reverted, you discuss it before changing it again. That edit was COLOUR, since the article was correctly COLOR beforehand. Get consensus. Film Fan 10:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

"When a controversial edit is reverted, you discuss it before changing it again." Practice what you preach then! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't me who made the edit. It was barney, and then you. Got it? Film Fan 10:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

"It wasn't me who made the edit." Well that unsourced edit in diff 138 says differently. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Stop wasting my time. This is utter silliness. That edit was a reversion. Film Fan 10:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Your time would not be wasted if you had sourced any of your changes or citied WP policy for each of your five reverts instead of edit comments such as "I am reverting you, because you are wrong". Cannes sources it as Colour, the poster says Colour and

WP:3RR too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead}

12:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually

WP:ENGVAR is in no way against me. Cannes sources it as both COLOUR and COLOR, which is irrelevant anyway because it's a French website, and the poster originated in the UK. So... I'm kinda right. Film Fan

12:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The film distributor lists it as Colour and not Color. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

You do not know what you're talking about. The title used by the FRENCH distributor is IRRELEVANT. The title used in the ENGLISH-SPEAKING world is what you're all ignoring, and the very thing that should matter. But I'm done with this stupid shit for now, because some people will never see till we get hard proof (THEATRICAL RELEASES). See you for another round soooon. Film Fan 14:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Please be

civil. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead}

16:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• @Film Fan:, you are edit warring; I don't want to block you, but if you revert once again, I'll most definitely do so. Please, discuss the issue on the talk page. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

He's heading down the road of personal attacks and shouting to get his views across on that talk page. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack; for the moment, the only thing I could do would be to invite him to calm down, which is something that usually has the very opposite result... Right now, he seems to have stopped editing; hopefully, he'll come back calmer... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Salvio. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I've tried to discuss this on the talk page at

Page: Men's rights movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CSDarrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This article is under community article probation. Per this ANI discussion, this article is under 1RR. Please also see the article probation]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [44] 2013-05-25T18:27:46 (Undid revision 556558464 by Saedon (talk)WP:WHYCITE says "particularly controversial statements should be supported by citations even in the lead.")
2. [45] 2013-05-25T19:56:35 ‎ (Undid revision 556768477 by Slp1 (talk)Removing vandalism. Please discuss in Talk page if you are to add material.)

• Informed of article probation[46]
• Previously blocked for 72 hours for editwarring on the same article[47]

I offered him the chance to revert, but the response was to claim that my edit was vandalism.[48]Slp1 (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments:
spl1 added controversial material that was not discussed let alone had any consensus. In addition a total of 7 citations where added to support a single sentence. The lede is now an utter mess. Imo opinion it is vandalism and my revert was justified under the the spirit of the RR1 rule. All that was needed was the addition of a couple of sources to support the controversial sentence in the lede. But now we are here.

Also the 'offer to revert' was posted 2 mins before it was reverted by someone else. CSDarrow (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of two weeks. This is not the editor's first block for edit warring in this article. CSDarrow is well aware of the rule, and their contention that they were reverting vandalism is meritless.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Continuing edit war regarding "misogynist": CSDarrow previously removed somewhat similar text on April 28 and May 1, following the April 26 determination that 1RR was needed on the article. In both cases CSDarrow removed from the lead section any mention of the fact that the MRM has been identified by this or that group as having misogynist tendencies or misogynist members—a fact that summarizes reliably sourced article body text. His most recent revert once again removed the word misogynist from the lead section. This is a long-standing dispute CSDarrow has with the other article editors, not a one-time revert. Binksternet (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Page: Wikipediocracy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [49]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [50] removed POV "alleged". Do we talk about "alleged problem of child abuse", etc.? The sources do not use "alleged", nor does anybody serious, e.g. Jimbo Wales
2. [51] Reverted to revision 556710909 by Alf.laylah.wa.laylah: corporation is specific while organization is vague. Precise links are better than vague links. (TW)
3. [52] Undid revision 556715968 by Conti (talk) See your talk page. Also discussed at DYK nomination, etc.
4. [53] Undid revision 556717514 by Conti (talk) Read the source, FFS
5. [54] Undid revision 556720212 by Conti (talk) RS says,censorship of marijuana "inhalation devices".
6. [55] Reverted to revision 556721982 by Kiefer.Wolfowitz: Misattribution of results to the site, as opposed to contributors, failure to obey talk page consensus, spotlighting OR on ownership violating due weight.

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

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

Comments:

There seems to be some ownership issues at this article and I'm concerned that Kiefer.Wolfowitz thinks that edit warring is justified because, as he put it, "My quality and NPOV edits speak for themselves". His attitude on the article talk page is a little off-putting as well. I'm not trying to get this editor blocked, but would like for him to acknowledge the edit warring, stop doing it and start listening to objections and concerns that other editors have voiced. - MrX 16:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note. I'm not sure why you're singling out Kiefer. It's true that he's breached
  WP:3RR, but there's a lot of battling in that article, and others have breached 3RR, or at least edit warred. I'm tempted to lock the article, and I may still do so if the battling becomes too disruptive, but I get the sense that the battle is moving in a positive direction, and I'm reluctant to protect an article that is being hopefully improved, albeit somewhat contentiously.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 17:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

  A review of the talk page discussions and editing history will show who has been acting in good faith. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't single him out and there may be others who have edit warred. His edits, talk page interactions and dismissal of my warning seemed problematic, but feel free to close this out if you don't view it as an issue requiring admin action. - MrX 18:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, now that Bbb23 has your permission, I guess it'd be all right. LMAO Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Come on X, you did single Kiefer out--it's the very nature of this report. Kiefer, please don't press the point, of reverting until you're brought up in one of these venues...maybe it's a hard habit to break, but it would save us all a lot of trouble. There are other ways to solve content disputes, better ways. Bbb, as far as I'm concerned you can close this, not because there's no fault, but because...I don't know. I'm tired. What's the point of anything anymore? and now I see that another editor saw fit to totally chop the lead, without taking the matter up on the talk page--and with little regard for lead writing. Should I revert the lot, just to beat Kiefer to it and prevent an additional diff for Mr. X? Maybe not because of that reason, but I'm going to revert anyway. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm closing this per Drmies. MrX and Kiefer, please listen to Drmies, both here and on the article talk page. He's a very wise fellow, even when he's tired. So, both of you, please behave. MrX, don't focus on Kiefer. Kiefer, be nice.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)@ Drmies - I saw an editor making a lot of recent reverts and being heavy-handed on the talk page. I wouldn't have taken it to AN/EW if he had simply agreed to ratchet it back a little when I raised the issue on his talk page. Perhaps Conti was deserving of a warning as well, but at least their talk page posts were not insulting toward other editors. I would hope that this article can be edited by more than just a couple of editors, some of whom seem to be using prowess and incivility to act as gatekeepers. - MrX 01:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Mr. X, I can't say I approve of Kiefer's style, at least not always. But you're mixing things up a bit here--you're suggesting that if he had been nicer you wouldn't have reported him. That's very honest (refreshingly honest!), but this is specifically for edit warring. Besides, I can understand if Kiefer gets a bit miffed at an edit summary "c e for style and grammar" for an edit that, well, does not help the grammar. Anyway, I agree that more editors is better. Now let's move on. Don't let Kiefer irritate you too much, and Kiefer, vice versa. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• You all seem to have confused BRD and edit warring. I have not been reverting to restore my favored version of the article. On the contrary, the reverts have been part of the BRD cycle. If you examine the article history, you can see that editors have discussed changes and come to consensus. In some cases, after complaints without policy warrant were made (against the stable version of the article), I voluntarily returned and implemented changes to deal with the GF concerns of editors, who were no longer actively editing. The talk page history and article history show that my edits have support among neutral commentators. An edit-warring charge was unwarranted. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Page: Queen of Sheba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [58]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [59]
2. [60]
3. [61]
4. [62]

Possible

1. [63]

In addition, Til Eulenspiegel has been blocked numerous times for edit warring in the past.

I believe the contributions of this IP should prove he or she is

WP:NOTHERE to do anything but try to ignite edit wars, troll and provoke disputes to block serial editors. They have edit warred to vandalize the article and I have reverted the troll when it became apparent they are trolling, but the page does need to be semi-locked now. Til Eulenspiegel /talk

/ 14:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Whose block log shows a history of edit warring? Not mine, that's for sure. As I've said earlier, this "editor" (can we even use that word?), has a long history of edit warring, and is very obviously using a sockpuppet account. 58.165.75.85 (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Page: Neymar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CanadianBoy7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neymar&oldid=556811596

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neymar&oldid=556823649
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neymar&oldid=556878219
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neymar&oldid=556885905
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neymar&oldid=556888435

+many more.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 556892474, 556887505

Comments:

• I'm an involved party (I believe I'm at or past 3RR), but I did try to explain the issues to the user. Mosmof (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Mosmof has warning him, has also not gone over 3RR himself. Canadianboy7 has also commented in person attacks stating he had all day to keep making the changes. I've also warned him. Narom (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for vandalism by User:Alexf.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xbox_One&oldid=556903018

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xbox_One&oldid=556903018
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xbox_One&oldid=556903856
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xbox_One&oldid=556905060
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xbox_One&curid=39458161&diff=556906869&oldid=556906387

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Explosiveoxygen&oldid=556904037

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [64]

Comments: Constantly tries to re-introduce poorly written

I am the "reverting user" noted above. EO was advised each time why their edits were being undone, as shown here and here, yet they continued their POV-pushing without so much as a desire to discuss. --McDoobAU93 19:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Page: Bodu Bala Sena (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 103.247.49.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [65]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [66]
2. [67]
3. [68]
4. [69]
5. [70]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [72] and again here [73]

Comments: Hi there. An added complexity to this issue is that the Anon editor appears to be using multiple IP addresses (the other addresses appear to include: 103.247.49.160, 103.247.49.158, 103.247.49.133, 103.247.49.161, 103.247.49.148, 103.247.49.168). That is why the warning went on the relevant talk page. I am not sure how best to handle that. Kind regards Andrew (talk) 09:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Semi-protected due to the shifting IP. I have also removed some material that may be perceived as outing from the talkpage. Black Kite (talk) 10:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Black Kite. Your help is appreciated. Cheers and happy editing Andrew (talk) 01:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [74]
2. [75]
3. [76]
4. [77]
5. [78]
6. [79]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Granuator#Kashi_Math_.28unexplained_uncited_and_unverified_edits.29

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [80]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kashi_Math&oldid=556555000 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kashi_Math&oldid=556983105

Comments:
User consistently removes cited verified content from article without any explanation. He has been warned on the article talk and his talk pages.

--PremKudva^Talk 09:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note. The history of this article and the editors involved is unusual. For the moment, I'm not taking any action pending a little more digging, although my present inclination is to lock the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [81] This is the diff of the previous version and the first edit I made to the page. FYI The only part of the page I have edited is the plot (as I watched it on TV, originally)

Diffs of the user's reverts: - Forgive me if I give the wrong Diffs. I've never used these before. But it's a close history and all sequential, and obvious from the History Page of the article. I put the diff links in the brackets: I hope that's right.

Here's his first revert, diff with my first edit.

1. [82]

Here's the second reversion, after I'd undone his revert, and was writing on his Talk page, and re-editing for length and improvements

1. [83]

Here's his third revert, and at last he edits the talk page rather than just edit comments. HOwever, just minor style complaints, no edits, and reverting to the initial inaccurate version.

1. [84]

4th revert. Manifestly decides that his agreement is consensus. This is a serious case of "my version" trolling. I haven't undone this ridiculousness as if will obviously go nowhere.

1. [85]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] Indeed. Informed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheOldJacobite&diff=557054620&oldid=557054581

Diff of first attempt to resolve dispute, which I first did On his talk page: [86] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (the first time I did this on the Kiss Kiss Bang Bang Page, as soon as I realised this was better) [87]

Comments:

TheOldJacobite has form for warring, as you can tell from his Talk page. He seems to believe this page is his own personal fiefdom. Instead of making constructive re-edits, he decided to revert to a manifestly inadequate old version rather than trying to improve the wiki, which is my only intent. Even though (or perhaps because) I'm a trained and experienced journalist in my past, I'm not precious about my words. If none of my words end up on the wiki, but it's accurate and well-written, I shall be happy. I suspect this is not the case with TheOldJacobite. Please look at our edit histories and talk pages! This guy has complaints all over.

I felt justified in putting back my at least accurate version, and particularly when I re-edited it for length and even more improved accuracy. All TheOldJacobite does is revert, which appears to be childish and destructive behaviour, n the grounds of extremely minor issues, and he's not doing anything useful or involving work.

I posted on TheOldJacobite's Talk page after his first revert, but he ignored it and commented through the edit summary. After his Second revert, I re-edited my version and posted it, and posted on the Kiss Kiss Bang Bang talk page, as you see. I advise him he's warring and reverting to an inaccurate version etc (See talk page). It should still be there at the bottom of his page. (Or see his talk history) Richardhod (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Declined. Neither of you has violated
  dispute resolution mechanisms to do so.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 19:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. It looked as if he was exactly doing that, but you are the experts. Problem is the criticisms change every time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardhod (talk • contribs) 19:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Page: Human evolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 90.203.225.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [88]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [89]
2. [90]
3. [91]
4. [92]
5. [93]
6. [94]

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

Comments:

Some of the user's edits above (though not all of them) were to re-insert the unsourced assertion that human evolution is a "very unproven concept" so they might be editing with an agenda or being disruptive to make a point. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Vsmith (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science
User being reported: User:AndyTheGrump

Previous version reverted to: [96]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [97]
2. [98]
3. [99]
4. [100]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [101]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Link here

I'm not actually asking for medical advice, I am asking a question based on curiosity as I am already being treated by an endocrinologist. I would just like to know more about androgen insensitivity syndrome.

Boomerang applies here in spades. The OP added this question to the Science desk six times and was reverted by three different editors, including me. Andy was right in reverting as trolling. Objections by the OP aside, I agree that this question is an inappropriate request for medical advice. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a request for medical advice. Or quite possibly simple trolling. See the contributor's first post. [102] AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not trolling or a request for medical advice. Why would you consider it so? See the discussion. I did not ask the question six times, I asked a different question later. 71.2.172.65 (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It's really idiotic for Andy to keep reverting when there are other editors around perfectly willing to do it (e.g., me), but regardless of that, what really needs to happen is for the IP to be blocked. Looie496 (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• No action. I'm not entirely sure how often the OP has to be told that their question is inappropriate for the refdesk; even if they're convinced they're not actually asking for medical advice, other editors are. Black Kite (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It looks to me like a homework assignment, which the ref desk also will not do. He needs to do his own research. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm not asking for the refdesk to do my homework. I'm asking for help in answering my homework. You don't even know what my homework question is. For all you know I have to write a 3000-word essay on the topic. 71.2.172.65 (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Start doing your research then... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You deleted my question. How am I supposed to start? I already searched the literature, but I don't have access to journals from the Holiday Inn. 71.2.172.65 (talk) 23:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Page: Sean Patrick Maloney (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Grammarxxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [103]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [104]
2. [105]
3. [106]
4. [107]

Comments: Grammarxxx and I clearly have different visions of how U.S. Congressman Maloney's page should look like. We have talked on each others talk pages and on the Talk:Sean Patrick Maloney page to no avail. He hasn't been very civil in this process. In fact, he has been very combative since the beginning. He has called me names and has accused me of ownership and reverting his edits. The fact is that both of us have been reverting each others edits. I could just as easily accuse him of ownership. It is unclear who started this dispute. Unlike him, I have been civil and tried to find common ground. Ultimately, I recommend the page to be semi-protected permanently and fully protected temporarily (a few days) as a cooling off period. In addition, Grammarxxx has not been civil in this process and I'm hoping that an administrator could at least warn him of a possible block.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 23:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments: While it is very true Jerzeykydd and I have different opinions on the layout, I have always tried to remain a civil as possible, and I find the fact he has come here to accuse me of being "combative" and "uncivil" during this process insulting. I on the other hand am here just to give my perspective on these conflict of edits (otherwise known as a "spat"). I have attempted to reconfigure the sections in the article, and when it became clear Jerzeykydd and I felt differently on the subject it was brought it up on the talk page, where we received an third opinion in my favor. Following that Jerzykydd then reverted my edits, the initial beginning of the edit war. While in his summaries he's claimed I "haven't been responsive to [his] comments," he has made none, and has simply tried to get his edits back in. Although Jerzykydd's summary makes him seem the victim in this war, he is leaving out crucial details in loo of mudslinging, I am sure once it is examined, it will show that this is just a spat between two Wikipedians with a difference of opinions. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 01:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [108]
2. [109]
3. [110]
4. [111]

• Note. I don't see why the article should suffer because you and the other editor duke it out in the article. No one else is doing it. Both of you should stay on the talk page, or both of you may be blocked for edit warring (fortunately, neither of you has violated
  dispute resolution to help you. I believe Grammarxxx suggested something along those lines on the article talk page. But stop battling in the article.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 01:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the
  3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Black Kite (talk
  ) 23:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Manchu people: Manchu people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bodinmagosson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [112]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:

Hej, my friend, I've left messages on your "talk" page, please check it. I'm new to wiki edit and am yet to fully learn how to properly reply a "warring" or "talk". I'll be busy these days but hopefully we can further talk in the "wiki way" since mid June. Bodinmagosson (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the
  3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Long running slow edit war. Discuss (further) on talkpage, pleaseBlack Kite (talk
  ) 23:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Page: Council of Jerusalem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 108.198.156.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There's been something going on for almost 2 weeks now. That is rather bizarre. This IP address 108.198.156.21 (and his alter, because the edit comment styles are the same, with the wording) 75.14.223.79, and his other alternate (again SAME writing style with his comments) 75.15.192.209, has had this uptight thing against simply modifying "Mosaic Covenant" to "Mosaic Law Covenant" in the article Council of Jerusalem. Just a simple clarity and valid modification, per context of paragraph, as well as the fact that that is ALSO a standard way of saying it. No valid reason to revert willy nilly, for basically "I don't like reasons".

The revert and edit history for the article is right here.

This user has reverted six times in a week and a half. Regardless of the clear point that wiki links DO NOT HAVE TO BE exactly the same wording as the actual article name. And that "Mosaic Law Covenant" IS a valid and standard and encyclopedic way of saying it too. He doesn't care. See what he did...

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [113]
2. [114]
3. [115]
4. [116]
5. [117]
6. [118]

This is what I wrote on the article talk page (in part) to the warring IP address:

Again, the fact that the article name has it as "Mosaic Covenant" is NOT really all that significant, as there are many wiki links with slightly altered or modified display wordings. With no problem.

And again, to repeat....sighs...."Mosaic Law Covenant" IS ALSO USED IN ENCYCLOPEDIAS TOO!!! What part of that fact is hard to understand or believe or see? It's a standard expression for that ALSO. So there's ZERO Wikipedia justification or reason to be so weirdly uptight about this, and to rudely undo that all the time. Again, "Mosaic Law Covenant" is also used in Encyclopedias... For real.

As for "consensus"?? You're kidding me. There's no "consensus" for YOUR uptight whiny nonsense on here. Plus this is such a minor (and correct) modification, it does not warrant all this edit-warring and craziness from you. Good day.

I almost can't believe this is going on. I'm a serious editor on Wikipedia, and I don't have time for uptight and silly games like this.

I have to say though that another editor (by mistake) In ictu oculi entered in, but admitted later that it was not "3RR" on my part, because he didn't carefully at first check the dates. It was over a week apart (at first), NOT "24 hours". In ictu coli is cool overall.

But the IP address(es) (the same person) has been constantly reverting, and being rude and unreasonable about this. It does not matter that the article name is "Mosaic Covenant" if the display link is a correct and valid modification or variation, being "piped".

Also, encyclopedias and other reference works use "Mosaic Law Covenant" ALSO. There's ZERO Wikipedia justification or reason for what this IP address has been doing. I warned him already that if he continued this nonsense, I would report him on here. He reverted again, despite what I took the time to explain and write on the article talk page. He's stuck on this for some reason. I mean, as I said, there's no "consensus" for HIS attitude on this, and there should be no real need for big "consensus" for my simple and valid modification, as it is correct, and it's not such a big deal.

Anyway, I'd like someone's take on this, and for someone to do something about this warring IP address. This is ridiculous now. I'm trying to be careful not to edit-war myself, or violate 3RR. So hence why I'm here now. Thanks for your consideration to this. Gabby Merger (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Article protected. This does appear to be a long edit-war over a triviality, so it needs to be discussed on the talkpage. I have protected the article to prevent anyone getting themselves blocked. Black Kite (talk) 00:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes I agree it's a triviality, and that's part of my point. And I already discussed this (at length too) on the article talk page. The IP user doesn't care. So what do I do? I just don't like the fact that it was HIS last revert that remained just before your block protection. But the point though is that there's no "consensus" for his trivial whining about this matter, and there arguably doesn't need to be, as my modification is not some earth-shaking or horrible thing. But valid and sourced and standard. So again, what do I do here? Gabby Merger (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The article is now as it was on April 15, 2013, before any of the disputed edits were made. That seems reasonable, doesn't it? The appropriate next step would be to obtain consensus for any change on the talk page. – Wdchk (talk) 01:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that this is such a trivial and minor modification (and a valid one), that really no other editor even cares about this, or is even adding anything or contributing to the discussion either way. Meaning that the IP editor's position on this (his whiny and weird position on this) does not have "consensus" really either. And he had no WP valid right to do what he's been doing. If other editors could chime in, on this silly matter, then fine...try to build "consensus". But no one seems interested. So again, what is to be done? Gabby Merger (talk) 05:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Page:

Previous version reverted to: [119]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [120]
2. [121]
3. [122]
4. [123]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] open proxy, multiple (blocked) IPs, warned of reporting on the talk page [[124]] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [125]

Comments:

I've edited the page as per agreement here:

• Result: First IP blocked as a suspected open proxy. Two articles semiprotected. Consider filing this at
  WP:SPI, and let me know if you need further assistance. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 22:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Page: Syrian civil war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [131]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [132]
2. [133]

Obvious violation of 1RR at an Arab-Israeli conflict article. Discussion is still ongoing on the talk page. There is no consensus whatsoever to add Israel to the infobox.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Man,He violated the 1rr about five times,trying to impose his point of view without any consensus

As far as i can see, at least 11th time. Wow... --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

WW, what in the world have you to do with this article? :) imo your stalking my talk is just embarrassing by this point. I honestly hope you might find some other hobby. --

talk

) 11:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I call on anyone to review the sources next to Israel's entry in the infobox (here) and not question the justifiability of the reverts that have been taking place for six months now. And that with significant support on the talkpage for its inclusion (its 6v5 or 6v6 or something..).

For six months now, and longer, these fellas have been

Reams of text were written in numerous talkpage threads, all sorts of DR attempts, several RfCs were called, DRN threads were posted. Over there, however, it boils down to the edit-warriors and their reverting, plain and simple. And no one wants to touch this with a ten-foot pole.

I'm an editor with over 46,000 edits on this project, and all I'm doing is making an addition that's so damn sourced its not even funny anymore. An addition which, I assure you, its entirely impossible to make in any other way. If you fellas wanna sanction me - sanction me. I do not believe my actions are fundamentally in contradiction with the meaning of Wikipedia policy. --

If both Direktor and his opponents keep reverting the article, blocks appear likely. Saying you are reverting 'Per talk' looks like empty words at this point. You all should know how to open an

WP:RFC. EdJohnston (talk

) 17:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: So you're just going to let him get away with this? This is not the first time he's done this. He's been trying to add Israel to the infobox without consensus since for months. Also, there was an RfC. See the discussions here: Talk:Syrian civil war/Israel.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't close the original report because the counting of reverts seemed messed up. At present I'd settle for any plan that aims to find consensus on whether Israel should be listed as a combatant. If blocks are needed, I'd propose that anyone reverting on Israel's combatant status from now on (before a clear talk page consensus) should be blocked. If there is no appropriate promise from either

User:DIREKTOR or User:Sopher99 about their future conduct I'd include them in the blocks for what they've already done. EdJohnston (talk

) 17:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I would agree to cease altogether removing Israel so long as DIREKTOR agrees to not add it in when a debate is ongoing. Stonewalling is not a legitimate excuse as there are significant minorities and significant majorities in this discussion, each with in depth arguments. Considering RfC and Dispute resolution's both failed to establish consensus, we can rule out stonewalling as an excuse. Sopher99 (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

So yes I agree to EdJohnstons's proposal. Sopher99 (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Me too. Anyone who add/remove Israel from now on should be blocked.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Though we need someone, an admin or such, to revert the edits while discussion is ongoing. Sopher99 (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a general discussion at

Thats the thing. There is no consensus, even when we tried RfC and Dispute Resolution, so it stays at status quo. Sopher99 (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Closing. I think Ed has it right here; discussion is the only way forward, with the caveat that further edit-warring to insert/remove the section absent a talkpage consensus will mean a block. And, oh yeah, a couple of editors above inserting comments to the effect of "BLOCK HIM!! BLOCK HIM!!" - not helpful. Let the report speak for itself, please. Black Kite (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

(just saw the post on my talk) I am prepared to give my word never to breach 1RR over there, if I could only get some helpful advice as to how and where this

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

Previous version reverted to: [134]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [135]
2. [136]
3. [137]
4. [138]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [139]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [140]

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Page: Coconut oil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: THC Loadee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [141]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [142]
2. [143]
3. [144]
4. [145]
5. [146]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [147]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [148]

Comments:
Though not pertinent to edit warring, the user in question has been blocked for personal attacks, and has been harassing

Note that he is continuing the edit war.

AutomaticStrikeout  ? 

02:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week by User:Drmies.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Page: True the Vote (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [149]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [150]
2. [151]
3. [152]
4. [153]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [155] (Discussion belated started by Dyrnych after he received a 3RR notice.)

Comments:
Diff #4 is an IP hailing from an open proxy server. The revert should be credited to Dyrnych according to

Geolocate indicates that the IP is a network sharing device or a proxy server, but not an open proxy server.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Not my edit. Also, "revert" 1 is my original edit of the page and not a revert at all.

Dyrnych (talk

) 13:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Not seeing a violation of 3rr, and if Federales thinks that the IP should be credited to Dyrnych, then I don't see why the other two IP's should not be credited to Federales. As a side note, the current version is very neutral. Arzel (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Diff #4 is not my edit. Also, Diff #1 is my original edit of the page and not a revert at all. I explained the reasoning behind Diff #2 in my edit summary. Diff #3 was probably not appropriate, but my reversion had just been undone by a nameless IP address that has apparently engaged in precisely one action: undoing my reversion (See [156]). If Federales is going to blame me for Diff #4 via WP:DUCK, he should be blamed for the revision noted above as well as for subsequent revision by another nameless IP address which itself has engaged in the sole action of undoing Diff #3. Thus, Federales would himself be guilty of edit warring and probably of violating WP:3RR. That said, I'm not interested in harassing Federales; I'm interested in resolving the underlying conflict.

Although I've never been involved in an edit war and this is something of a new experience for me, I've familiarized myself with Wikipedia's policies on edit warring and do not intend to revert further. Hence, I'm attempting to resolve this conflict through the article's talk page. Thus far, Federales has used the discussion solely to accuse me of edit warring and has not addressed the actual substance of the conflict other than subjectively noting that my edit "didn't improve the article." I don't see how any sort of resolution within WP:BRD can be achieved when I lay out my rationale and the response I receive is as trivial as that.

Also, I should point out that Federales' claim that "[d]iscussion belated [sic] started by Dyrnych after he received a 3RR notice" is false. I started the discussion prior to receiving the 3RR notice from Federales. That's an easily verifiable fact, and I'm not sure why Federales would claim otherwise.

Dyrnych (talk

) 18:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Article already protected, and regardless No violation. As mentioned above, the filer should be very careful about assigning IP edits to the other editor "per WP:DUCK" when there are two IP reverts that do exactly the same for his own edits. Black Kite (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prosperity_theology&oldid=557462217

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prosperity_theology&oldid=557550431

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prosperity_theology&diff=557415804&oldid=557411621
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prosperity_theology&diff=557462486&oldid=557462217
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prosperity_theology&diff=557463349&oldid=557462808
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prosperity_theology&diff=557549799&oldid=557549234
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prosperity_theology&diff=557550431&oldid=557550234
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prosperity_theology&diff=557553561&oldid=557552495 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Attleboro (talk • contribs) 18:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prosperity_theology&action=history

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prosperity_theology#Gospel_of_success

Comments:

As can been seen from

WP:3RR doesn't apply to reversions of WP:BLP violating material, while it clearly does apply to those inserting such material, I suggest that action be taken against Attleboro instead. AndyTheGrump (talk

) 18:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• The BLP concerns here are legitimate and need to be discussed. That is not to say that some form of this material cannot be in the article, but unless and until a consensus is reached as to the form, wording, and specific sources used to put in the article, it should NOT be there until BLP concerns are dealt with and a wide consensus is reached. Attleboro, please do not readd this material, consider this a warning to not proceed down this path. If you wish to see this material in the article, work out exactly how to do so on the talk page, and get widespread agreement to do so. Which is not to say 100% agreement, but a broad consensus is necessary. --Jayron32 18:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Jayron, I wish you'd review this.
    WP:3RR exemption 7 is "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." Since neither libelous, unsourced, nor poorly sourced, the only one that may apply is biased, but since this is criticism, that shouldn't apply either if reliably sourced to a notable. Grump does not read carefully. The words he objects to are sourced, except no one called Donald Trump a heretic. Some of Osteen's ideas are called heresy. Some of what Trump represents are called subversive. No individual is called a name. Also, Grump did not "report... to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." Attleboro (talk
    ) 21:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    • First, it's a judgment call by the reviewing admin on whether to apply the BLP exemption. Wikilawyering the language of the exemption won't assist you. If the admin believes that there are strong enough BLP issues, applying the exemption is sound. Second, to the extent it matters, I agree with Jayron. Third, arguably the material is poorly sourced considering how you cobbled it together.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    • (
      WP:DR has many suggestions. --Jayron32
      21:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)