Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive223

Page: Lady Gaga discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 9 sep 2013 01:47‎

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10 sep 2013 00:56
2. 10 sep 2013 00:43‎
3. 10 sep 2013 00:29‎
4. 9 sep 2013 01:47‎

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [2]

Comments:
Homeostasis07 has been edit warring against three different editors, apparently on the strange assumption that Nielsen, the worldwide standard in music sales statistics, is incompetent with regard to sales outside of the US.—Kww(talk) 01:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

And what is the problem? You just admitted yourself that neither Billboard nor Nielsen claim to count for Worldwide album sales. And, for the record, it's been two different users I've been disagreeing with in regards to Lady Gaga discography -- yourself, and someone with the username Gaga K$ Xtina. It's been the same argument for the past 8 months between random IP users (and Kww has been the contributor who has been archiving all the discussions about this subject). Anyone moderating over this debate should check the entire history before making any rash decisions. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem is very simple, Homeostasis07: you reverted four times in 24 hours in opposition to three other editors, and don't seem to understand that edit-warring is a problem.—Kww(talk) 01:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

TWO other editors - yourself and Gaga K$ (Kesha) Xtina. IndianBio simply removed another source I included a long, long time ago - a source I included merely as a tactic to calm down all the IP's that swarmed this page. I may have reverted four times in the past 24 hours - but that was merely because you butted your head in. And look where we are now. Convenient, eh? :S Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

One comment: the previous accusations that I have been "archiving all the discussions" is just bizarre. My last edit to the article was on Oct 19, 2011. My last edit to the talk page was on Oct 15, 2010.—Kww(talk) 02:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Page: Abrahamic religions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wiki hamze (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. 5 September 20:40
2. 6 September 12:38
3. 9 September 10:34
4. 9 September 10:51
5. 9 September 12:03
6. 9 September 13:18

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [4]

Comments:

User was already advised by another admin, here another editor here and repeated this behavior today.

I am here to defend obvious accusations. FIRST I myself applied the changes not reverted back. it was also after a long discussion. it was also 2 times not 3 times revert. others were edit and adding some thing new. it is completely reasonable. If you refer to this talk under Abraham religions you will see there is no consensus about considering Bahai's faith beside other 3 big abrahamic religions. it is a obvious true fact. many guys presented their arguments there. absolutely there is no consensus about this in anywhere else. please respect the other people beliefs and observer what other people think. SECOND : you weren't active in related talk page yourself. please come there and present your arguments. THIRD : it seems that your behavior is going to violate 3-revert rule in side Abrahamic religion page. you can see in the talk page there is only on person agree with this idea and 5 person not.--Wiki hamze (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I am reporting this user for not participating in talk and not offering any argument or reason for reverting other users changes. there is also many arguments against this user in related talk page by many other users. this user doesn't respect other user's opinion.--Wiki hamze (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected for 2 days. Wiki hamze has not technically broken 3RR (consecutive edits by the same user count as 2 revert for the purposes of 3RR), so I'm not inclined to block. However, a read through the discussion on the talk page suggests to me that his attitude need to move from one of
  fighting a battle to one of collegial editing. I suggest that users continue the discussion on the page, and advise Wiki hamze to adopt a more collaborative approach to the discussion. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions}
  ) 16:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Page

RealClearPolitics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

)

1. 18:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC) "clear OR/SYN, as cannot be verified by cited source"
2. 20:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572392612 by Goethean (talk)I'm so sorry but your world view cant fix the fact your data doesn't support your retarded ass interpretation of cited refs"
3. 20:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572394899 by
   talk
   )consensus nononononononononono maybe you meant constupid"
4. 20:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572395531 by
   talk
   ) I'm ready to accept how certain people blame human events for their nuttiness."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Not only is the editor clearly edit warring, his comments(both in edit summaries and on the Talk page) are

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for a specific violation of 3RR, and Page protected for 4 days to prevent further edit warring from other users. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Page: Rupert Sheldrake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 198.189.184.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Perennial problem with this BLP of a controversial author.

• Result: Article semiprotected one month. The IP broke 3RR, making four reverts in 24 hours starting at 22:14 on 9 September. They have never posted to the talk page. They've been blocked twice before. I'm leaving them a warning under
  WP:ARBPS. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 04:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Page

Deepa Miriam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Antopandeth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572264078 by FreeRangeFrog (talk)"
2. 22:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572258303 by FreeRangeFrog (talk)"
3. 22:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572130990 by FreeRangeFrog (talk)"
4. 00:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 571780597 by Salih (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on
   TW
   )"
2. 23:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor insists on inserting unsourced personal information. I've explained that they need a source, but all I've gotten so far is a YouTube video. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for BLP violations. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 10:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Page: Croatian Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 193.198.7.30 (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. [5] - section blanking
2. [6] - section blanking with removal of (probably unnoticed) off-section content (which was independently added between first and second revert)
3. [7] - section blanking with removal of (probably unnoticed) off-section content
4. [8] - section blanking with removal of (probably unnoticed) off-section content

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

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

Comments:

Accusations by a minor group of extreme leftists (https://www.facebook.com/ndh.wikipedia?hc_location=stream) have no merit.--193.198.7.30 (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

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

--37.244.136.51 (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Already blocked for 31 hours by User:Discospinster & Blocked – for a period of one weekMark Arsten (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Page: CC Sabathia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Carelief1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [13]
2. [14]
3. [15] and [16] count as the same revision, done in two edits
4. [17]
5. [18]
6. [19]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Page: The White Queen (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Paatv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [21]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [22]
2. [23]
3. [24]
4. [25]
5. [26]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Comments:
This user (who also edits as an IP and as User:WhiteQueen2013) has ignored all attempts to engage in discussion on the article talk page or his own user page, so this was not specifically raised on the article talk page, as it seemed pointless to do so. It was raised on his user talk page. User_talk:Paatv#The_White_Queen. Paul B (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week for disruptive editing, edit warring, and socking. Additionally WhiteQueen2013 (talk · contribs) has been indef blocked as a  Confirmed sock. Tiptoety ^talk 20:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Page

Old Firm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

MagicEagle67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572248470 by VanguardScot (talk)"
2. 14:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572344123 by VanguardScot (talk)"
3. 14:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572248470 by VanguardScot (talk)"
4. 14:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572351524 by VanguardScot (talk)"
5. 14:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572351701 by VanguardScot (talk)"
6. 18:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572359640 by VanguardScot (talk)"
7. 21:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572387940 by VanguardScot (talk)"
8. 13:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572409550 by VanguardScot (talk)"
9. 14:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572487614 by BadSynergy (talk)"
10. 19:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572496344 by VanguardScot (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [28]
2. [29]
3. [30]
4. [31]
5. [32]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. [33]
2. [34]

Comments:

Repeat history of edit warring on this topic. Previously blocked 9 months ago.

Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is this? has VanguardScot not been reported for ALSO REVERTING? What a complete and utter farce.

• Page protected. I've locked the article for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Page

Antoni Gaudí (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

LTblb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC) "Catalonia is a region of Spain. Catalan is no nationality; it wasn`t in the nineteenth century, and it is not today."
2. 20:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572535920 by
   WP:POV, WP:edit warring
   "
3. 20:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC) "Catalan is no nationality"
4. 11:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 571447558 by
   WP:POV WP:Edit warring
   "

The user's talk page is suggestive of a history of Spain and Catalan related editing, with plenty of warnings. James^x12345 21:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Favonian (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Page:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [35]
2. [36]
3. [37]
4. [38]
5. [39]

(Page is under 1RR restriction)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Numerous at

Comments:
Notified: [41] VQuakr (talk) 07:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

As you can see from the examples, except for the first item below, I have not reverted anything.Haberstr (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

[42] -- Reverted malicious edit which changed "veteran

CIA analyst and conspiracy theorist Ray McGovern." My edit summary stated: "Undid apparently malicious edit by Sopher99. Let's be nice, people!"Haberstr (talk

) 07:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

[43] -- This was not a revert. My edits were not reverted, were non-controversial, and became the consensus. My edit shortly thereafter on the 'Western' and 'Eastern' semantic issue became the consensus.Haberstr (talk)

[44] -- This was not a revert. I corrected POV bias. The huge preceding section, 'government attack', spent many paragraphs summarizing the circumstantial and alleged evidence for governmental responsibility for the alleged attack. In the tiny 'rebel attack' section I added the first and only RS expert summary of the circumstantial evidence pointing toward rebel responsibility for the attack.Haberstr (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

[45] This was not a revert. I added the RS French intelligence service's '281 or more' estimate of the number of victims. I don't understand why this was controversial.Haberstr (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

[46] This was not a revert. I moved the death estimates to the second sentence. My edit was reverted, and I have not 're-reverted'.Haberstr (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• WP:3RR. Although I could have blocked them under the sanctions, those sanctions are relatively new, so I chose not to. I did officially warn them. To make it clearer, in addition to the existing notice on the talk page, I will create an edit notice for the article. There's way too much battling going on in the article, and, strictly speaking, a warning is not required.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 14:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Page:

Previous version reverted to: [N/A - removal of information]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:21 11 Sep
2. 06:16 12 Sep
3. 07:13 12 Sep

The first and second reverts remove information; the third undoes an unrelated change of ordering. The first and second relate to the discussion at

Comments:
Page is under 1RR due to being part of Syrian civil war. Note that probably a number of participants (including me, maybe) have violated the 1RR - it's very hard to stick to. But participants are mostly seeking compromise so I think it's fair to cut slack; PLNR is not. Podiaebba (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment by PLNR

• The first two edits, have been made on separate days. They are part of BRD effort which have been
  discussed here
  , after Podiaebba initial edit.(who imo have been consistently adding material based on dubious sources, with nothing but accusations that everyone else are pushing western propaganda to support them) The discussion wasn't concluded, nor there was consensus for Podiaebba phrasing, all we got is a suggestion for alternative phrasing, however, @Podiaebba choose to go ahead and reinserted what he wanted, disregarding BRD process and thus Editing warring.
• The third edit has nothing todo with first two, its in completely different section, where I done no other revert. Which I did due to my opinion that the death toll sentence flows better into the next/last sentence("If the death toll...). While the first two provide a good description of the subject i.e. what, where and who.

Overall there was no attempt at editing warring, in fact I started most of the threads on the

• Declined. Even before I read this report, I was scrutinizing PLNR's edits at the same time as I was evaluating the report above. I concluded that PLNR violated
  policy on edit warring, including the sections on 3RR and 1RR so they understand the definition of a revert. It doesn't matter whether you are obviously reverting another editor or if you are editing in the same area of the article. A revert is undoing (changing) another editor's content, which means making almost any changes to the article anywhere in the article. And that can include adding material if you are adding material that was previously removed.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 15:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Page: Neon Genesis Evangelion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Folken de Fanel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Stable text pre-dispute text diff:[47]
• Original removal by TeenAngels on 09:07, 10 September 2013 : [48]
• Folken's alteration and reinsertion on 21:11, 10 September 2013‎ : [49]
• Folken's 2nd reinsertion on 08:09, 11 September 2013: [50]
• Folken's 3rd reinsertion on 13:32, 11 September 2013 [51]
• My third revert under BLP grounds complete with policy link on 18:54, 11 September 2013: [52]
• Folken's 4th reinsertion on 11:59, 12 September 2013 [53]

This is not a 3RR breach, it is for continuing to edit war a contentious insertion and likely BLP violation during a discussion at BLPN. The original removal by TeenAngels was to remove a borderline to rather inaccurate reading of an interview by Hideaki Anno. TeenAngels gave the reason as it did not reflect the cultural impact and replacing/removing the inaccuracy he found.[54] At 13:52, before Folken's alteration and reinsertion, I stated that while I did not have the Unofficial Guide to Neon Genesis Evangelion the text was not relevant and it was inaccurate and that I was already aware of Anno's comments, agreeing with the removal.[55] A debate continues about it, Folken argues that Anno's response to fans is relevant and does not need to be NPOV. I disagree saying it is not relevant, neutral or accurate - noting it was out of context. Folken finds a brief editorial in Protoculture 41, (linked off of Gwern's English translation of the full text of the interview), and asserts it as fine before inserting.[56] After some back and forth I give the full reason complete with the BLP matter and the inaccuracy in PA41 as it was written.[57] After this post Folken reinserts, for the 3rd time, the text and I take it to BLPN.[58] In the process of BLPN I assert

Lastly, this seems to be a continuation of the problems which lead to Folken's RFC/U. While I was not a party to that RFC/U or had contact with Folken, the behavior is the same. I have dozens of interviews with Hideaki Anno I can source and cite with ease, but I do not have the original scan from Newtype in June 1996. The content, by any measure including the extant translations found online, show that Folken's text is inaccurate and incorrect. For example the "toilet graffiti" comment was in response to someone saying he was dead, not a response to fan's criticism. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Bad faith report. That I modified my edits to incorporate other users' feedback (including ChrisGualtieri's) does not count as "revert warring" or whatever. Anyone can see the substancial differences between my first and last edits and I did not breach 3RR. My edit from 21:11, 10 September 2013‎ is a completely different text and source that TeenAngels's original and thus should not even be counted as a revert. I note, however, that ChrisGaltieri has reached the 3 reverts limit within 24 hours(02:01, 11 September 2013‎, 13:22, 11 September 2013, and 18:54, 11 September 2013‎). He tries to argue that his 3rd revert would somehow be allowed under

WP:DISRUPTIVE

as he was specifically told wasn't a matter of BLP or libel justifying immediate revert.

I'll end on the fact that during this dispute, ChrisGualtieri received a comment on his talkpage from an uninvolved editor, who noted his tendency to get involved in disputes, with at least 3 different users recently, and which led to several reports at WP:ANI (here and here). I can only plead good faith for my edits when I tried to change and adapt my content as much as possible to ChrisGualtieri's remarks rather than purely reverting, but his 3rd self-proclaimed BLP revert shows was determined to have his own way, to the detriment of compromise and good-faith.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

To break 3RR you need 4 reverts in 24 hours. And both I and TeenAngel have said the information was inaccurate even prior to your removal; and unlike TeenAngel - I have the source information and can attest that your edit is not accurate. As long as it is under discussion (especially at BLPN where it should be) the content is to remain out of the page and I have confirmed that your edit is inaccurate and I have provided the citation, but you reinserted the text anyways. Also refrain from your personal attacks; BLP is very serious and misusing sources to misquote Anno is a major concern for me. This is libelous and unlike the Akai's actual gaff, it is not supported by the original document. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

You don't have the source information, you have an unreliable fan-translation. I have a reliable publication. My edit is accurate. There is no misquote anywhere. This isn't a BLP matter, as you have been told by two different persons at BLPN and you had no justification to revert. My last edit states: "he compared offensive and anonymous online messages to "graffiti in a public toilet"", which is accurate. How you can interpret that as meaning "the "toilet graffiti" comment was in response to fan's criticism" (per your report) is beyond me. There is nothing libelous, and implying that I could be libelling is a personal attack.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

First, I have the source information. Secondly, let a volunteer deal with this. Folken's paraphrasing of the inaccurate editorial should not replace the original, even if the text is somehow relevant on that page. Message me on my talk page if requiring more details in the content matter, but I came here over Folken's edit warring. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

You said in your report that you "do not have the original scan from Newtype in June 1996". I'm willing to let a volunteer deal with this, but not until I get to tell my view of the story. There is nothing inaccurate as the editorial says the same thing as your fan translation. I still have no answer as to how you interpret my edit "he compared offensive and anonymous online messages to "graffiti in a public toilet"" as meaning "the "toilet graffiti" comment was in response to fan's criticism". And I came here to report your own revert warring.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)}}

I note that ChrisGualtieri has just been warned by yet another user against "revert(ing) constructive editing without discussion" in a separate discussion. I think this can be relevant to this case.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The advice from Nick on RSN is to just remove the offending section. [59] This is probably for the best and since no one has broken 3RR this should probably just stop. This way the dubious translation (either side) is moot and we can remove the irrelevant material or use one of the other sources instead. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Note. I'm not convinced that Folken did not breach
  WP:3RR, but I'm happy to close this and permit the content/policy dispute to continue in the other forums.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 19:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Page

Holocaust denial (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ann2013usa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572623802 by DoctorJoeE (talk)"
2. 14:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572625363 by Dawn Bard (talk)"
3. 14:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572625752 by Dawn Bard (talk)"
4. 14:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572625996 by
   talk
   )"
5. 14:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572626367 by Triplestop (talk)"
6. 14:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572627335 by Dawn Bard (talk)"
7. 14:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572627945 by Dawn Bard (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Note that user has already been blocked for 48 hours by Singularity42. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
• Already blocked Singularity42 (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
• Report filed and block issued within a minute of eachother. Great minds think alike . Yintan  14:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Page: Maria Theresa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 188.96.192.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [60]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [61], including a racist personal attack against Sjö (apparently the attack was left unfinished, but I suppose the IP wanted to say that Sjö should go edit his "own" Wikipedia)
2. [62]
3. [63], including a racist personal attack against me (suggesting that I am not fit to edit this Wikipedia due to being "Russian or some other Slav"
4. [64]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [65]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [66]

Comments:

There was never any indication that this would be properly discussed on the talk page. There is simply nothing to discuss; the IP claims that the world's best known empress (perhaps overshadowed only by Catherine the Great and Victoria) was never an empress. When I pointed out that, by her or his logic, the last 14 emperors were also not emperors, all discussion about her status ceased (though not the removal of her title) and personal attacks followed. Surtsicna (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected three days by another admin. The IP's edits make little sense. Let me know if he starts up anywhere else. EdJohnston (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

Spieden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 04:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC) to 05:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
   1. 04:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC) ""
   2. 05:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC) ""
3. 03:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 03:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC) to 03:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
   1. 03:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC) ""
   2. 03:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC) ""
5. 03:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC) ""
6. 02:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC) ""
7. 02:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC) ""
8. 01:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User refuses to discuss reverts, has now made legal threats. "Now... who are you? Come out of the shadows. Or shut the fuck up. I have now engaged my attorneys to solve this problem. You will need to step forward an identify yourself. No more hiding behind your mouse." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Note that this user appears to be the subject of the biographical article in question. I am attempting to engage him to understand his objections to the material, but at first glance it appears to be well-sourced and not immediately a violation of any biographical policies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The user has responded to my request to explain any issues he has with the article with another legal threat. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of indefinitely for making legal threats. I've also posted a note on his talk page with advice. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 10:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Page:

Previous version reverted to: Please see Diffs and comment

Diffs of the user's reverts: Please note that the links below are not for 3RR violation but for the reasons explained in comments

1. [67]
2. [68]
3. [69]
4. [70]
5. [71]
6. [72]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Links of North cyprus below the comments section. Main concerns are POV pusihing and edit warring

Comments:
User is on a campaign of reversing the order of multiple North Cyprus places names (Changed to Turkish first and then Greek) ignoring any conventions that could exist (In most places the Greek name is first) and also did not provide an adequate explanation. Most of these kind of articles have titles in Greek.Informed the user that the common name is therefore the Greek one and should hence be first but the user ignored me [73], [74], [75] and never used the talkpage before/after reverts. In addition edit warred on changing the map of North Cyprus in

• Note: After report submission I got a sarcastic message containing a smily icon that I have been reported too [77]. I think it is obvious that the user is not here for serious editing.

• Diffs of North Cyprus edit War

1. [78]
2. [79]
3. [80]
4. [81]
5. [82]

• Also 3RR violation since 4th revert in less than 24h
• Now trying to intimidate an administrator threatening with a formal complaint to Wikipedia [83]
• Still changing names after this report. I reverted most of the names back as they were before and he/she reverted all of them [84],[85], [86], [87]
• Now posting unsubstantial messages on talkpage [88]. Story continues and now I was called a fool. Action needed please [89] 95.141.31.4 (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
• Blocked indef by User:Bishonen. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Page: The Fog (2005 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Stiarts erid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [90]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [91]
2. [92]
3. [93]
4. [94] (3RR breached)
5. [95]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [96] (made after 4th revert but before 5th)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [97] and [98]

Edit warring, 3RR, and Incivility. There has been ongoing disruption caused by this editor over the past couple of months, though yesterday they breached 3RR and have made the same revert again today despite warnings. The main issue surrounds the section for the plot of the film which was, until a couple of months ago, too long and contained too much irrelevant detail, as per

He even called me a bully and an illiterate, and quoting his words "and truth hurts does it," proves that he deliberately sending offensive messages. I admits that I have learning disability, but that does not give him a right to call me illiterate.NeoBatfreak (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually let me put my point across before we all take sides. Yes it was wrong of me to make comments that caused offense but you must realise it was heat of the moment type things that most people would brush off quickly. I made several attempts for editors to discuss the matter with me but they refused so they could have their own way without taking notice of me. Millahnna actually was able to calm me down and made me see her point of view just by having a reasonable disscussion with me more than the other lot. Also whether one editor likes it or not his grammar is in fact partially illiterate that's a fact not insult, and without being harsh is it really wise to edit on here if you have that disability? None of the editors would listen to my point of view only their own and have bullied me to get their own way. I disagree with some of wikipedias policies but none of them say one editore has over riding say on things which some of these people think they have. I was quite happy for both mine and other edits to be included or for mine to be included but worded differently. Actually all the editors did was call me child ish and that I was wrong to edit because to them it was irrelevant. That word irrelevant is a matter of opinion no one can say it is irrelevant you can say in your opinion it is irrelevant. They will not leave me alone either please tell them to go away and not to talk to me please it is driving me mad! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stiarts erid (talk • contribs) 19:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC) Also the quotations above other editors have used or not in full and taken out of context to make me sound worse — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stiarts erid (talk • contribs) 19:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Your abusive attitude towards other Wikipedians has been going on for months now which proves this is not a "heat of the moment" issue as you claim, this is clearly your normal behaviour. It is not acceptable under any circumstances to hurl abuse at other editors, and trying to delete the evidence of your abusive attitude will not work either. And as for your claim that you have not been listened to, I can see from the edit history of the article's talk page not to mention your own talk page and those of other editors, that several people have gone to great lengths to explain Wikipedia's policies to you and why your edits are inappropriate. But you have ignored all of this purely because you want to have your own way. People have tried to engage with you but you simply refuse to listen. You agreed to stop being abusive and edit warring at the end of July, only to resume the same behaviour a couple of weeks later. Clearly you thought there would be no consequences for your actions. If you cannot abide by Wikipedia's policies then you have no business editing it. Kookoo Star (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Even when I edits some Back to the Future film articles, some editor reverted some of my changes and I would respect that, and I would not use profanity and name calling. Clearly, Stiarts erid has no respect of others and wants things his own ways.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

No heat of the moment as I called them a name only about twice after the editor had wound me up. And again this is falling on deaf ears. But the fact one editor was able to calm me and see her view proves that it was handeled very badly by the other editors, if she could get me to see her point why couldn't the others. She is now trying to help me unlike the others which were just in it for themselves. You still miss the point I was willing for BOTH edits to be included OR my edit worderd DIFFERENTLY so it would flow better, this suggestion was ignored. I never promised to stop anything I said I was bored odf fighting and I had put it behind me which the other editor didn't believe and when I tried putting my point across again, I was told I was doing it again without being given a chance. If you can't handle a minor insult then you can't handle much most people could easily brush it off. Some editors have persistently wound me up and then wonder why I retaliate after giving them chances to discuss it. And saying youre wrong blah blah is not trying to reason it's just being biggoted in my opinion without giving it as much as a chance. But what ever I put on here is wrong so what's the point? i said to one editor on here about reaching a comprimise on their talk page but have refused to reply and they call me childish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stiarts erid (talk • contribs) 19:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC) Also I noticed that I can admit I did things wrong but the other editors on here can not seem to admit to doing anything wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stiarts erid (talk • contribs) 20:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

What exactly did everyone do to you? We did not use name calling and profanity, you did!!!!!!!! Trying to undo your message for getting rid of the evidences of your offense on our talk pages did not help either, because we can restore them, as I already did. --NeoBatfreak (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Not taking on board my contribution. Why exactly did you ignore my suggestion of letting both mine and your v=contributions stay or editing mine in a way it would be better then? Go ahead I have nothing to hide that I don't want people to see only that it makes you look even more unreasonable of course and winding me up but have fun with that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stiarts erid (talk • contribs) 20:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone get a sense of this editor's erratic behavior from this message? I think he just prove my point: want things his own ways without considering of others.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my question as to why you wouldn't consider my suggestion of both edits being allowed or mine just being worded differently??

It is not the job of other Wikipedians to "calm you down". You should behave in a civilised manner at all times. You obviously can't do that. And your edits to the article were considered by several editors but were deemed inappropriate by each of them. Attempts were made to show you why, highlighting the relevant policies and guidelines that we must operate in. But this wasn't good enough for you, and so you just continued with your rampage stating that the rules were "idiotic" and that nobody was going to stop you. Well think again. Kookoo Star (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. It is not our responsibility to "calm [him] down." We tried to explain the rule, but obviously failed. He should've read the Wikipedia's rules and regulations, including Wikipedia:No personal attacks. He made personal attacks on ME, by calling me a bully and an illiterate!!!!!!!!!!!!!--NeoBatfreak (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah um my question is still not answered, WHY COULDN'T BOTH MINE AND THE OTHER EDITORS CONTRIBUTIONS BE LEFT OR MINE JUST ALTERED SLIGHTLY? like I said everything I do is wrong on here so what's the point in even trying to talk to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stiarts erid (talk • contribs) 21:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Your question has been answered, several times on the various talk pages, but because you don't like the answer, you persist in disruptive and abusive behaviour. You were continually adding incorrect and irrelevant details to the article and deliberately taking the plot summary section over the maximum word count, flatly refusing to follow the guidelines or the consensus made by other editors. There is no justification for your actions. Kookoo Star (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Note to administrators: Yet more incivility. The reported user has just written "PISS OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!" on my talk page [111]. Kookoo Star (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

and call me insane, saying "I do not leave him alone" yet he's following my posting like glue.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• Note. The article has been fully protected by @Mark Arsten:I have warned Stiarts erid about the personal attacks. I can't believe this battle is over a film plot.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

And that's it? He's been edit warring for months, broken 3RR, and continued to be abusive even after this report was filed. The abusive language alone (including writing "fuck off" on the article talk page and "piss off" on my talk page) should be enough to have his account blocked, let alone the rest. Furthermore, the article was currently protected after he reverted yet again to his preferred edits which is against consensus, so all you have done is reward him for his behaviour. Additionally, any report of edit warring can be trivialised based on the content of the article, but this report was filed because of the blatant and ongoing behaviour of a highly disruptive and abusive editor. You are about the sixth editor to give him a warning about his conduct. Do you honestly think he takes such warnings seriously? Kookoo Star (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, just block him. He's been acting like he owns Wikipedia, and we had to bow down his superior wisdom. With his incivility, I doubt anyone like him outside the Internet. Not to mention, he's following my posts like a stalker!!!!!!!!!!!--NeoBatfreak (talk) 06:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you all should stop bickering like school children. And, NeoBatfreak, you should remove the exclamation point from your keyboard.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I have read Talk Page comments from User Talk Pages as well as the one for The Fog (and the page's Edit History) and I think it's a question of Stiarts erid AND NeoBatfreak edit warring. Although it was wrong for Stiarts erid to delete any Talk Page content both Editors have behaved poorly toward each other, throwing insults and accusations that just continue to escalate.

I think NeoBatfreak has been working on this article page longer and might be protective over it. I looked at the edit Stiarts erid wanted to make and it was not even a full sentence. If it did push the plot word summary over 700 words, it couldn't have been more than 710 words. I think Stiarts erid handled the situation badly (especially refusing to talk about the substance of the change on the article Talk Page) but it really was a minor edit, not vandalism. The proposed edit was similar to ones that happen thousands of times a day on Wikipedia and it's unfortunate that this simple edit escalated to civil war between two users.

I don't understand the significance of why this plot summary is so important to the Editors and I think they have just become entrenched in their positions where one Editor is the winner and the other is the loser. It's unfortunate that neither party could just walk away and that, because of frustration, this dispute brought out the worst in those involved. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

He tried to add irrelevant name like "Brandi" on the character Jennider played by Meghan Heffern repeatedly. Just because the other character Spooner made an identity mistake, does it has to be included? Kookoo Star and other users are also frustrated by Stiarts erid's actions and behaviors.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I was talking about two phrases Stiarts erid wanted to add to the plot summary. And when I see that User:Kookoo Star hadn't edited since April and then jumped right into the middle of the dispute on The Fog a few days ago, I wonder what the connection is between you two.

Again, I'm not defending the way any Editor reacted in this messy dispute. It's just wrong to make it seem like this was all Stiarts erid's problem. This is not a black/white situation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no connections with User:Kookoo Star, instead we both find Stiarts erid irritating and abusive, using profanity and all.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I have no connection with Neobatfreak, nor to my knowledge do any of the many other editors who disagreed with Stiarts erid's behaviour in this entire matter. To be quite honest Liz, I resent the suggestion. You have only to look at Stiarts erid's talk page and the article talk page (including all the edits he removed) to see the volume of warnings about his conduct. To me, this issue is solely about making the article a decent article, not about winners and losers. In recent months, various editors have attempted to make it a decent article. The wording was poor, the cast list was inaccurate, and the plot summary was too long and far too cluttered with irrelevant details that are not plot points. Looking at the edit history, considerable work has gone into addressing these problems, especially paring down the plot summary so that it fell to exactly 700 words while keeping it concise. But Stiarts erid refused to accept this, and flatly refused to adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and began edit warring, reverting the work of other editors for no good reason. When they were pointed out to him, he called Wikipedia's rules and guidelines "idiotic" and made it clear he had no intention of following them. In August, two single purpose accounts were created to either vandalise the article or assist Stiarts erid in his edit warring. It's hard not to notice that "Stairts erid" is "Dire Straits" written backwards, and "Senotsgnillor" is "Rolling Stones" backwards. Coincidence? Most importantly, I would like to point out that this report was not made because of a content dispute (there are different noticeboards for that), it was made because of his deliberately disruptive and abusive behaviour. We should be concentrating solely on that, not getting sidetracked into debating whether or not a film's plot summary means the end of civilisation as we know it. As well as his personal attacks on other editors, it is frankly outrageous that he has been allowed to write "piss off" and "fuck off" on talk pages and get away with it. And as for suggesting that Stiarts erid was not the only one at fault here, I would like to point out to you that neither myself, Neobatfreak, or any of the other editors involved in the matter have broken 3RR or used abusive language. Kookoo Star (talk) 04:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I would like to point out that he called me a bully, an illiterate, and used profanity. He rudely said "get over it" without even apologize his behavior. Also, he comment that if someone have an disability, should he be allow to be on Wikipedia? I have admitted that I have a learning disability, which results my grammar issues, but that does not give him a right to discriminate other people.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 06:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Page: Insulin glargine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.164.103.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [112]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [118]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [119]

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Page

Daivathinte Swantham Cleetus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

116.68.72.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 12:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC) to 12:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
   1. 12:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC) ""
   2. 12:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC) ""
2. 12:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC) ""
3. 12:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572877543 by Jamesx12345 (talk)the soure says The movie got excellent reports"
4. 12:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572877313 by Jamesx12345 (talk)"
5. 12:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC) "Message re.
   HG
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Adding biased information. I've reached my revert limit, so they have the current edit atm. James^x12345 12:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Note. I've blocked the IP and User:Nobody is perfect and i am nobody for 72 hours. I've semi-protected the article for a week. I believe the IP address is being used by Nobody. There is also an extended pattern of disuption by Nobody across many articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Page: Dick Strawbridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 89.248.18.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Five additions, four today, of vague allegations of impropriety about the subject of a BLP. No details or sources. Now posting to user talk pages. Also vague mentions of "getting the police involved" that may be

I have no idea what this is about and I don't care. But uncited crazytalk has no place on BLPs, no matter how many times they post it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Six additions, five today. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked 24 hours by User:Zzuuzz. I've semiprotected the article for a month as a precaution. The IP's protestations are mystifying because there is no hint of anything defamatory in the article. There is nothing for us to remove. EdJohnston (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Page: Applause (song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gaga690 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: this is not especially pertinent since edits consist of removing an entire section. A version before the section was added is here.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [120]
2. [121]
3. [122]
4. [123]
5. [124]
6. [125]
7. [126]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [127]
2. [128]
3. [129]

Note: the third warning is from today and there hasn't been a section deletion after it.

The material in the section has been discussed at Talk:Applause_(song)#Controversy.3F.3F. There doesn't appear to be a consensus to remove it entirely. Neither I nor Gaga690 participated in the discussion. My one reversion is here.

Comments:There were similar edits by SilverKeith and Saadkhan04.

—rybec 20:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Encourage Gaga690 to start discussing her/his reversions on the talk page before undertaking them. Leave a note to that effect on their talk page. In case, after the note, the editor again undertakes a unilateral blanking of the section/material without discussions, come back, the editor will be blocked. Wifione ^Message 20:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Page: Letitia James (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User being reported: 71.167.144.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User talk:71.167.144.190 is engaged in edit warring and in threatening me. This apparent newby IP editor left me a message calling my edits "destructive" and threatening to get me blocked. He/she left another message indicating that there is a discussion regarding myself at ANI but I have found no such discussion, and the IP vandal (as I call him/her)'s contribution history does not indicate any activity on any pages other than the Letitia James page and my talk page unless he/she is inappropriately using other IPs or usernames. I stand by my edits (see [130]) and hope an experienced editor will review them, if necessary.

This IP editor has also violated

What a total crock. Here he is threatening me. And you can see here and here that he absolutely has an agenda. These are telling Freudian slips here and here. He's been blocked in the past whereas I have no such record. Anyone that's moronic enough to claim objectivity (as above) while so zealously trying a new format for Wikipedia introducing an as-of-yet unelected successor into a politician's intro and erasing record of her political work while having years of experience on Wikipedia is a liar and deserves a good ban for a week. A month would be even better. Thanks!--71.167.144.190 (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

For an apparent newby editor, he/she is throwing around blocking threats mighty suspiciously. There is no POV here nor here, merely, respectively, very minor MOS differences, and public info added. I have no interest in James, while I do admit there are topics I have interest in. After eight years I think I have learned how to avoid committing intentional POV, and spend more of my time cleaning up others' POV, as well as avoiding areas I cannot edit dispassionately. Quis separabit? 17:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks like both sides are edit warring and being threatening. The warning left by Rms that includes "If you ever threaten me again I will have your IP blocked at ANI from editing Wikipedia. When you have been editing for 8 years (as I have been) then I'll cut you some slack." is clearly entirely inappropriate. You don't have that kind of power, and your threat is not part of

WP:DR. An editor of 8 years should know better. Both of you should stop edit warring and go to the talk page. (Yes, IP, you at least made it there after this report was filed. An improvement, but it shouldn't have gotten this far.) Rms, if you have socking concerns, please be very specific or stop throwing shit at the wall hoping it will stick. They might not be new...but that doesn't mean that edits coming from this IP today are problematic. --Onorem (talk

) 17:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Onorem: with all due respect, my message to this IP editor was made after I read the following comment which he/she left on my talkpage. And what I meant was that I was going to report it at ANI if he/she continued to threaten or started harrassing me. How would you have handled it? Quis separabit? 18:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Your edits are destructive POV-based ones.
And please stop trying to shoehorn Laurie Cumbo in there before she's even in or I will get you blocked.
--71.167.144.190 (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Also I don't quite understand what the first part of "They might not be new" ... but that doesn't mean that edits coming from this IP today are problematic means. Thanks, Quis separabit? 18:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Onorem, how come you made no mention of

civility regarding the following IP comment on this very page, to wit: "Anyone that's moronic enough to claim objectivity (as above) while so zealously trying a new format for Wikipedia introducing an as-of-yet unelected successor into a politician's intro and erasing record of her political work while having years of experience on Wikipedia is a liar and deserves a good ban for a week. A month would be even better."?? Quis separabit?

18:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

How would I handle their empty threat? I would simply call them on it. I would say 'good luck with getting me blocked' over a content dispute. The second part is easy. It means we don't require people to use an account and nothing prevents an IP from changing. It doesn't matter if they are new or not unless you have some reason to think that they are being evasive in their use of changing IPs. As far as the civility goes...I didn't notice it. That's why I made no mention of it. --Onorem (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow, didn't notice it. Quis separabit? 18:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

(Why so much indentation? NVM) No. I didn't notice it. I saw they'd replied, but was looking more at the history of the article and interaction away from this page when I was initially replying. What difference does it make? Does their lack of civility here have anything at all to do with what happened before this topic showed up on this page? --Onorem (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• (
  WP:3RR by both of you is relatively technical, but you're both disrupting the article. From a BLP content standpoint, @Rms, you're doing worse as you're adding rather important material to the article, including your opinion, with no source to back it up. I think you should both back off editing the article. Looks like another editor has cleaned up your material in the body (the infobox is still unsourced).--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 18:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)