Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive226

Page: Template:Babism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Islam90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 23:37, October 15, 2013 UTC

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:05, October 16, 2013 UTC
2. 17:24, October 16, 2013‎ UTC
3. 22:52, October 16, 2013‎ UTC
4. 23:48, October 16, 2013 UTC

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Original warning related to general Wikipedia principles of edit warring on another page 22:19, October 15, 2013 UTC. More statements regarding Wikipedia general practice about disagreements 01:59, October 16, 2013 UTC. Specific warning about 3rr on the article of issue 23:19, October 16, 2013 UTC

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: On the talk page, [1] and multiple times asking him to come to the talk page [2], [3]

Comments: Multiple editors have asked the editor to bring up his concerns on the talk page, but he has refused. I don't know why, but he just ignores requests to bring any discussion, but just reverts -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Page: Titanic (1997 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ring Cinema (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [4] (Plot summary does not contain the disputed phrase "decide to")

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [5] - Revision as of 06:42, 16 October 2013
2. [6] - Revision as of 00:46, 17 October 2013
3. [7] - Revision as of 02:28, 17 October 2013]
4. [8] - Latest revision as of 04:48, 17 October 2013 ]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [10]. I would also note that after this 3RR report was filed, two completely independent, unsolicited editors joined the discussion and agreed that the disputed phrase "decide to" is inappropriate.

Comments:
He makes a self-serving claim that his fourth edit, already a sign of edit-warring, was "returning to the status quo before the bold edit that is under discussion." As the "Previous version" diff above shows, that is factually and concretely untrue: The Plot summary in "Previous version" does not include his contentious edit, the phrase "decide to".

The ironic thing is that he's edit-warring over a one-word a piece of objectively poor writing that any writing teacher would instantly recognize.--Tenebrae (talk) 05:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Tenebrae is the offender here, assuming without reason that he can ignore the correct procedure of BRD. After his bold edit was reverted, he restored it, contrary to policy. Discussion is ongoing but, per the policy, the reversion stays in place. I am simply restoring the status quo while the discussion is ongoing, and that is correct. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, as the "Previous version" diff shows, I restored RIng Cinema's edit to that status quo, and rather than discuss, he reverted to his own version. Anyone can look up the diffs and see which of us is telling the truth. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Tenebrae has his facts wrong.. I am simply trying to maintain the status quo while the discussion continues. He is trying to do something else and it's not about following the policy. Is he actually asking us to believe that I somehow reverted to a different edit than the one I want to retain? If he's trying to say that we are in agreement that the status quo should be maintained during discussion, then we agree that my last revert was correct.. No further action is necessary. --Ring Cinema (talk) 11:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, this is a first: I've never heard of a person being reported for 3RR being able to say, "No, I'm unilaterally dismissing the case, even though I'm not an admin and even though I'm the one being accused of 3RR." Amazing.

The fact is, the status quo was the version last edited by

User:Flyer22, as the diff show. That status quo version did not have the disputed phrase "decide to" in the plot summary. So Ring Cinema is blatantly, badly lying. Anyone can see the diff for him- or herself. --Tenebrae (talk

) 17:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The first diff above is not a revert, so apparently this complaint is incorrect. It would be good if Tenebrae would follow the BRD policy but at the moment it's a moot point. (As a side note, Tenebrae's version of events is not plausible. He made a bold edit and I wanted to return to the status quo during the discussion. He is now apparently denying that he made a change at the same time trying to claim that I reverted his change. To be clear, I never reverted Flyer22, even if Tenebrae has tried to produce a diff that makes it appear that I did.) --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Okay. I'm going to have to list this out.

1. BRD is not a policy, it is an essay suggesting one way to make improvements to an article. BRD does not give you the right to keep removing or re-inserting material because someone isn't discussing on the talk page, nor does it say anything about which version of the article is preferred or gets to hang around during the discussion or lack thereof.
2. "Restoring the status quo" is not an excuse for edit warring regardless of who is "right". The only exceptions to 3RR are listed at
   WP:3RRNO
   .
3. That first diff ([11]) is indeed a revert, as Tenebrae (t c) removed "decide to" in this edit. The first diff shows that text being re-added, ergo, it is a revert.
4. There is a fifth revert: [12].
   t c), who moved the "After braving several obstacles" clause to its location at the start of the second paragraph you rewrote with this edit
   , and your rewrite removed it.

Given all of this, plus your extensive history of edit warring noted via your block log,

3RR. —Darkwind (talk

) 05:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Page

Indigenous peoples of the Americas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC) ""
2. 23:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 577415863 by Dbrodbeck (talk) Earlier revised due to pro-Chinese racism. Not adequate enough explanation."
3. 01:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 577503909 by Dbrodbeck (talk) I have please read it. Stop reverting to the irrelevant Chinese edit."
4. 08:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 577530994 by
   talk
   ) "misrepresented"No. Sources clearly say they are not related to asians at all."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP started a discussion on the talk page but carried on editing and has made clear they will evade any block (the IP says ban but clearly means block).

To quote the IP:"Please refrain from trying to ban me without discussing it with me. I'll just get around it." And when I said we don't ban IPs, "You are now dodging the argument and arguing semantics block, ban. I will get around it." — Preceding

talk • contribs

) 09:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. —Darkwind (talk) 05:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [13]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [14]
2. [15]
3. [16]
4. [17]
5. [18]
6. [19]

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

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Avraam_Benaroya#Disruptive_editing

Comments:

For more than one year AngBent has vandalized this article repeatedly and deniyng even the fact that Benaroya was born in Bulgaria. He has warring despite in support of that fact, there were provided more than ten reiable sources. Now he keeps deleting information and facts about the life of Benaroya, that links him to Bulgarian socialist movement and even he played the key role by in the foundation of the Greek Communist Party. Deleted by him information is supported with nearly ten reliable sources. Moreover, he refuses any reasonable dialogue on the talk-page or some kind of compromise. Jingiby (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Not a 3RR violation, but a slow edit war is still an edit war. Blocked – for a period of 72 hours —Darkwind (talk) 05:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

Datu Dong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC) "how often to state this until everyone gets it, daaaammmmnnnnnn"
2. 10:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC) (Redacted)
3. 12:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC) (Redacted)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on
   TW
   )"
2. 13:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC) "/* ANI notice October 2013 */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Topic banned Already on ANI thread.--v/r - TP 14:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: revision history

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. (cur | prev) 09:00, October 17, 2013‎ Uscbubblegirl (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (56,470 bytes) (+53,118)‎ . . (→‎Career) (rollback: 1 edit | undo | thank) (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism)
2. (cur | prev) 18:15, October 16, 2013‎ RFD (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (3,352 bytes) (-1,356)‎ . . (revert to ucsbubblegirl citations were removed) (undo | thank)
3. (cur | prev) 18:05, October 16, 2013‎ 99.191.56.185 (talk | block)‎ . . (4,708 bytes) (+1,356)‎ . . (Undid revision 577494344 by RFD (talk)) (undo)
4. (cur | prev) 17:50, October 16, 2013‎ Uscbubblegirl (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (3,352 bytes) (+35)‎ . . (→‎Education) (undo | thank)
5. (cur | prev) 17:49, October 16, 2013‎ RFD (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (3,317 bytes) (-1,356)‎ . . (revert to rfd citations removed-please take this to talk page blp concerns) (undo | thanked)
6. (cur | prev) 17:47, October 16, 2013‎ Uscbubblegirl (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (4,673 bytes) (+191)‎ . . (→‎Career) (undo | thank)
7. (cur | prev) 17:39, October 16, 2013‎ Uscbubblegirl (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (4,482 bytes) (+498)‎ . . (→‎Career) (undo | thank)
8. (cur | prev) 17:36, October 16, 2013‎ Uscbubblegirl (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (3,984 bytes) (+667)‎ . . (→‎Career) (undo | thank)
9. (cur | prev) 17:28, October 16, 2013‎ RFD (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (3,317 bytes) (-496)‎ . . (revert to paulmcdonald citations were removed/blp concerns) (undo | thank)
10. (cur | prev) 17:24, October 16, 2013‎ Uscbubblegirl (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (3,813 bytes) (+1,117)‎ . . (→‎Career) (undo | thank) (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism)
11. (cur | prev) 17:20, October 16, 2013‎ Uscbubblegirl (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (2,696 bytes) (-621)‎ . . (→‎Career) (undo | thank)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Uscbubblegirl#User talk:Uscbubblegirl

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See notes in article history

Comments:
Another user (RFD) has attempted to move forward on a conversation on the issue and has not met with success. I believe that the editor may be new and may be unfamilair with Wikipedia policies so I ask that a neutral third party look this over. I was involved in an AFD and some editing previously on the article so I don't really consider myself "neutral" at this point.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Uscbubblegirl had removed some cited material about Aaron Jack who had served in the Kansas Legislature and replaced it with uncited material. I was concerned about BLP and COI issues. Apparently Aaron Jack is controversial in Kansas. I did make the attempt to have Uscbubblegirl communicate any concerns and got no where. I had posted a Welcome template on Uscbubblegirl's talk page. For my part it was not an edit war there was BLP/COI concerns. Thank you-RFD (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

She also added huge honking swaths of copyrighted material which were so enormous as to constitute a

WP:NOT#WEBHOST, since we are not here to host a reprint of a lengthy ideological rant by the subject in the article about him. --Orange Mike | Talk

19:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Topeka Capital-Journal seems to be a reliable source and their story (by Tim Carpenter) is based on interviews of Aaron Jack himself and other named political figures. EdJohnston (talk

) 19:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked indef for making legal threats. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Page

Boro Primorac (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to: [21]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [22] Calling upon
   WP:OPENPARA despite the fact the mentioned country did not exist and the common practice is to label notable personalities born on territory of modern-day Bosnia and Herzegovina by their ethnic affiliation (example Blaž Slišković, Miodrag Medan
   , etc.)
2. [23]
3. [24] Completely ignoring/interpretating
   WP:OPENPARA
   as it suits him
4. [25] Once more

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:Timbouctou#Boro_Primorac and also in edit notes on Boro Primorac.

Comments:

Whoever is going to handle this report be advised that this user is currently in a argument conflict with me on

This first started a few days ago at

WP:COMMONNAME

and Shokatz arguing the opposite).

A few days after that, believing my position was right, I started a move discussion at Talk:Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina to gauge consensus about moving the article to the more commonly used term for the article topic. Shokatz did not like that so the discussion soon turned into a stream of his insults directed at me and my apparent "POV-pushing agenda" (just read the discussion.) In parallel the discussion at Talk:Croats continued. He called my move request "an escapade" and that I was "getting so low to request a move of one article so I can satisfy my POV-pushing agenda on another article [which is a complete embarrassment."]. Upon warning him that what he was saying constituted personal attacks [35] his response to me was to "stop whining about something I brought upon yourself." [36]. After yet another warning [37] he replied that because of "requesting a name change so it can suit my POV-pushing agenda" I was "shameless."[38] and that I was "insisting on ridiculous WP:COMMONNAME argumentation" [39].

Meanwhile the other move request discussion at Talk:Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina took a similar turn, with him accusing me of " dishonest and POV-pushing moves" [40] and went on to say that he had a problem with my alleged "duplicitous, POV-pushing bullying" [41]. I explained my position in both discussion multiple times, but all I got from Shokatz was a stream of insults and paranoid rants about my alleged "POV-pushing", even though I have no clue what POV he is talking about.

And in the middle of all this, an edit-war started at

WP:FOOTY that Yugoslav footballers are supposed to be designated per their country of birth in opening statements (not their ethnicity). Shokatz claims this is not true but it is in fact quite the opposite, as a look at many of Bosnian footballers' articles will show. So we both reverted each other 3 times and then he raised this at my talk page and started threatening with reporting me [42]. After my reply, he said he would proceed with the report as I was "unwilling to budge" [43] I listed everything that was wrong with what he was insisting on including in Primorac article, warned him that he too had violated 3:RR and asked him not to contact me again [44]

.

And here we are. Perhaps I should have brought this matter here myself as soon as he started with personal attacks over at Talk:Croats and Talk:Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina. But I did not. In any case, I do not plan to apologize for keeping entirely unreferenced and irrelevant information out of the opening paragraph in a biography of a living person. His behaviour at both talk pages mentioned above was disruptive and abusive, and his edits at Boro Primorac were vandalism by definition. Plus, he edit-warred to keep the vandalism in. Timbouctou (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Imo it'd be silly if someone actually got sanctioned over this... --
  talk
  ) 23:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I think his name-calling and insults at Talk:Croats and Talk:Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in addition to his trolling at my talk page [45] and 3:RR violation are all reasons for some sanction. Since when do we condone personal attacks in talk page discussions and since when is it OK to describe other editor's position as "low", "shameless", "whining", etc.? The guy offered zero policy-based arguments in both discussions. Since when is this kind of behaviour seen as lovely jubbly? Timbouctou (talk) 23:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Not jubbly, but the guy's still kind of new to our glorious project, and he hasn't been warned either. Imo a "Cut It Out!" template on the talkpage. --

talk

) 23:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry but please do not patronize me. I am "big boy" and I am well capable of taking responsibility for my actions. If I did anything wrong I will gladly suffer the consequences. But this is not about me. It's not me who broke the 3RR rule, it's not me who requested a name change of another article to reach a consensus on another as the the user in question here stated....who does that anyway?!? And I am sorry but commenting on someone's behavior (as I did on Timbouctou's) is not name-calling. I believe Wikipedia itself has a short but informative article on this (

Shokatz (talk

) 00:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

It was not my intent to appear patronizing, I apologize. --

talk

) 05:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Shokatz (t c), I don't see that you have been officially warned of the discretionary sanctions on Balkans-related articles, so I will post that to your talk page. For both of you, this should serve as a reminder that further disruption on Balkans-related articles, by either of you, may result in sanctions. —Darkwind (talk
  ) 05:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Page: Titus Andronicus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Werieth (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. [46]
2. [47]
3. [48]
4. [49]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51]

Comments:

User is engaging in edit warring, reverting citing copyright violation when it has been already shown by another user that there is no clear violation per

I have already told them to file a

WP:NFCC#1,3,8 for removal) which this is a clear case of being replaceable and not meeting the second clause of #8 Werieth (talk

) 12:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you think there is a copyright violation, the guidelines on 3RR states that it needs to be unquestionable a copyright violation before you can justifiably violate the 3RR rule, something you chose to ignore. I should state that this is not my dispute, just a passing observer alarmed by the number of images you have removed over the protest of other users. Hzh (talk) 12:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I removed 5 files and left about 20 others, Please note I did not invoke copyright violation, I invoked a violation of

WP:NFCC Specifically replaceability, minimal usage, and to a lesser degree contextual significance (#1,3,8). You have done nothing other than provide ample evidence you are clueless in regards to our non-free content policy. #1 alone is grounds for removal and exemption from 3RR (we dont have non-free images of living people for example). I also cited Romeo and Juliet which is a similar work and is a FA. Guess what? it has zero non-free files out of a total of almost 40 on the page. Werieth (talk

) 12:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

PS why havent you filed a review at

WP:NFCR? Oh wait I know why, because you know you will just be told the same thing I am telling you. Werieth (talk

) 12:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

As stated, not my dispute. Please read

WP:3RRNO #5 again before claiming exemption from the 3RR rule. Hzh (talk

) 13:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I have, files that are clearly replaceable, fail #1, and shouldnt be in the article. Werieth (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yep. Looks like a
  WP:3RRNO violation to me. Werieth, if you think the discussion should have been raised in a different forum, the onus was on you to take it to that forum before resorting to 3RR. NickCT (talk
  ) 16:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
• Mixed result The result is really that those who restore content that possibly violates the copyright of someone else are at fault in an edit war where a reasonable argument is made that a copyright violation exists. Werieth made such an argument. I've reviewed the article and I am inclined to agree to some respects that NFCC #1 was violated. I've protected the page and intend to layout why everyone managed to escape a block.--v/r - TP 16:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

You might also mark the discussion where Werieth made his reasonable argument on the article talk page. I cannot find it. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

If you're asking what's worse, restoring copyrighted material is clearly worse than edit warring. So, you're better off if I just close this case as I have.--v/r - TP 17:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

re " those who restore content that possibly violates the copyright" - Can you cite policy please. As far as I see it the standard is that material must be "clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC)" per

WP:3RRNO. Can you point to the policy where the language states that material that "possibly violates the copyright" should be removed? NickCT (talk

) 17:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:NFCC, "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created."--v/r - TP

18:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

It does not show that it supersedes the 3RR rule.

WP:3RRNO clearly states that unless there is unquestionably a copyright violation, and it should be established as a violation first before an exemption to the 3RR rule can be claimed. That does imply that the 3RR rule is more important when there are differing opinions, otherwise why would the word "unquestionably" be there? Hzh (talk

) 19:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I've reviewed it and I think the copyright complaint is valid and meets the

WP:3RR exemption. That's why uninvolved administrators make the determination and not editors in the dispute. I've outlined why I feel it was more prudent to protect the page and why I feel Werieth's complaint is valid on the article talk page. As far as I'm concerned, this 3RR case is over. Unless you're volunteering yourself, Teddy, and Bertaut for a block for restoring copyrighted materials?--v/r - TP

19:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

If there is a dispute over

Stefan2 (talk

) 20:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

In this case there are more than 2 editors involved (4 in fact, 3 of whom are opposed to Werieth's action), when there are multiple objections, I would take it as a clear case of no "unquestionable" violation. The wording of

WP:3RRNO appears to me to be a caution against indiscriminate removal of content suspected to be of copyright violation when there are strong objections. Hzh (talk

) 20:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

@

WP:NFCC argument, especially since so many have now questioned whether it was a clear violation. re "Unless you're volunteering yourself, Teddy, and Bertaut for a block for restoring copyrighted materials?" - That seems a tad threatening, no? Hzh's dissent is reasonable, whether or not it's right. You shouldn't be threatening with a block for that. NickCT (talk

) 00:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

It probably is a bit threatening, sorry. I get a tad annoyed when folks try to see sanctions on others when their own hands are just as dirty. I believe that 3 editors teaming up to edit war is still edit warring.--v/r - TP 00:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

@TP - Ah well..... I guess the wikidrama gets to us all now and then. NickCT (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Please also note I never invoked an issue of copyright, I invoked a clear violation of

WP:3RRNO#5 defense 100% correct. Werieth (talk

) 17:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm going to have to agree that not all of the images that Werieth was removing were necessary clear copyright problems to evoke the 3RR exemption. I don't believe any of them are appropriate, but there's some borderline and possibly improvement (the fact that the stage productions actually tried to similar blood, for example). This needed to go to discussion, and I don't think, even as a strong supporter of NFCC, that this case is a clear exemption. --MASEM (t) 19:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [52]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [53] [54]
2. [55] [56]
3. [57] [58]
4. [59] [60]
5. [61]

Comments:
Both

Both editors blocked.--v/r - TP 19:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Page: Jack Andraka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 162.129.251.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [62]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:38, 18 October 2013‎ CaffeinAddict (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,689 bytes) (-4,043)‎ . . (Undid revision 577743863 by 162.129.251.72 (talk) Clearly POV edit, see talk page) (undo)
2. (cur | prev) 18:15, 18 October 2013‎ 162.129.251.72 (talk)‎ . . (18,732 bytes) (+4,043)‎ . . (→‎Cancer detection method) (undo)
3. (cur | prev) 18:13, 18 October 2013‎ Jarkeld (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,689 bytes) (-4,042)‎ . . (Undid revision 577742851 by 162.129.251.72 (talk) contains POV, synthesis and various other errors) (undo | thank)
4. (cur | prev) 18:09, 18 October 2013‎ 162.129.251.72 (talk)‎ . . (18,731 bytes) (+4,042)‎ . . (→‎Cancer detection method) (undo)
5. (cur | prev) 18:06, 18 October 2013‎ Jarkeld (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,689 bytes) (-4,000)‎ . . (Undid revision 577741415 by 162.129.251.72 (talk) see: WP:BRD) (undo | thank)
6. (cur | prev) 17:59, 18 October 2013‎ 162.129.251.72 (talk)‎ . . (18,689 bytes) (+4,000)‎ . . (→‎Cancer detection method) (undo)
7. (cur | prev) 17:55, 18 October 2013‎ Jarkeld (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,689 bytes) (-4,000)‎ . . (Undid revision 577740063 by 162.129.251.72 (talk) rv: possible POV, Synthesis. Please discuss before readding) (undo | thank)
8. (cur | prev) 17:49, 18 October 2013‎ 162.129.251.72 (talk)‎ . . (18,689 bytes) (+4,000)‎ . . (→‎Cancer detection method) (undo)
9. (cur | prev) 17:38, 18 October 2013‎ CaffeinAddict (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,689 bytes) (-4,245)‎ . . (Undid revision 577736419 by 162.129.251.72 (talk) Possible POV edit, with suspicious sourcing.) (undo)
10. (cur | prev) 17:17, 18 October 2013‎ 162.129.251.72 (talk)‎ . . (18,934 bytes) (+4,245)‎ . . (→‎Cancer detection method) (undo)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63]

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

Comments:
POV editing, keeps being reverted, there have been 5 reverts today. CaffeinAddict (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Page: Clare Devine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kingfrogger666 (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70]

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

Comments:

    (cur | prev) 04:38, 19 October 2013‎ 88.104.25.210 (talk)‎ . . (7,112 bytes) (-22,452)‎ . . (Undid revision 577803400 by Kingfrogger666 (talk)) (undo)
    (cur | prev) 04:37, 19 October 2013‎ Kingfrogger666 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (29,564 bytes) (+22,452)‎ . . (Undid revision 577803360 by 88.104.25.210 (talk)) (undo)
    (cur | prev) 04:36, 19 October 2013‎ 88.104.25.210 (talk)‎ . . (7,112 bytes) (-22,452)‎ . . (Undid revision 577803285 by Kingfrogger666 (talk)) (undo)
    (cur | prev) 04:35, 19 October 2013‎ Kingfrogger666 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (29,564 bytes) (+22,452)‎ . . (Undid revision 577803061 by 88.104.25.210 (talk)) (undo)
    (cur | prev) 04:32, 19 October 2013‎ 88.104.25.210 (talk)‎ . . (7,112 bytes) (-22,452)‎ . . (Undid revision 577802959 by Kingfrogger666 (talk)) (undo)
    (cur | prev) 04:30, 19 October 2013‎ Kingfrogger666 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (29,564 bytes) (+22,452)‎ . . (Undid revision 577802897 by 88.104.25.210 (talk)) (undo)
    (cur | prev) 04:29, 19 October 2013‎ 88.104.25.210 (talk)‎ . . (7,112 bytes) (-22,452)‎ . . (Undid revision 577802109 by Kingfrogger666 (talk)) (undo)
    (cur | prev) 04:18, 19 October 2013‎ Kingfrogger666 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (29,564 bytes) (+22,452)‎ . . (Undid revision 577801561 by 88.104.25.210 (talk)) (undo)
    (cur | prev) 04:16, 19 October 2013‎ 88.104.25.210 (talk)‎ . . (7,112 bytes) (-22,453)‎ . . (undo)
    (cur | prev) 04:15, 19 October 2013‎ Kingfrogger666 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (29,565 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (undo)
    (cur | prev) 04:11, 19 October 2013‎ Kingfrogger666 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (29,564 bytes) (+22,452)‎ . . (Undid revision 577801561 by 88.104.25.210 (talk)) (undo)
    (cur | prev) 04:10, 19 October 2013‎ 88.104.25.210 (talk)‎ . . (7,112 bytes) (-22,452)‎ . . (refs or it didn't happen. WP:V, etc; come on fam; you know the drill. WP:BURDEN -give refs, or don't add it. Simple. Undid revision 577801199 by Kingfrogger666 (talk)) (undo)

88.104.25.210 (talk) 04:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Anon has been blanking this and other articles. Anon and not the editor should be blocked. A simple examination of the edit history of the article in question will show this.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clare_Devine&diff=577798513&oldid=577790089
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clare_Devine&diff=577800807&oldid=577800639
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clare_Devine&diff=577801561&oldid=577801199
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clare_Devine&diff=577802002&oldid=577801906
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clare_Devine&diff=577802897&oldid=577802109
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clare_Devine&diff=577803061&oldid=577802959
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clare_Devine&diff=577803360&oldid=577803285
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clare_Devine&diff=577803491&oldid=577803400
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clare_Devine&diff=577803684&oldid=577803566
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clare_Devine&diff=577803978&oldid=577803775
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clare_Devine&diff=577804134&oldid=577804064
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clare_Devine&diff=577804502&oldid=577804284
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clare_Devine&diff=577804911&oldid=577804595
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clare_Devine&diff=577805179&oldid=577805015
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clare_Devine&diff=577798513&oldid=577790089

I'm counting 15 reverts in just over two hours. Anon made claims that

WP:BRD. Walter Görlitz (talk

) 06:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Now also at
  WP:ANI, and a matching AN/3RR report below ES&L
  11:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Result: Article protected by User:Calmer Waters. EdJohnston (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

That's not a result. It's cop-out. Anon was behaving inappropriately and the reported editor was as well. What's just happened is that you have condoned the bad behaviour first by not acting quickly and then by saying "it's OK, I'll lock the page so on one can edit it". Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Page

Pushpak Express (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

)

He has put a note on my talk page.

We have had disputes in the past. I am trying my best to understand what he is upset about. But he has only been adding reading policies as his response. I am not convinced even after having read them. And thanks to the reversions am close to the 3RR limit. A little help would be appreciated. Superfast1111 (talk) 07:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

You got some help on the article talk page from @RegentsPark: I'd take their advice to heart because the edit warring on the page by both of you is disruptive, and the "discussion" on the talk page is not constructive.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider
  DRN. Also, next time you make a report here, please actually include the diffs requested. —Darkwind (talk
  ) 17:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Page: Clare Devine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 88.104.25.210 (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. [71]
2. [72]
3. [73]
4. [74]
5. [75]
6. [76]
7. [77]
8. [78]

Comments:Rude IP address who only started editing today, already edit warring all over the place.
Dream Focus 09:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Is this not related to the entry 2 above this one? ES&L 09:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

...and now also at

WP:ANI ES&L

11:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Article fully protected two days by User:Calmer Waters. EdJohnston (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, that's not a result. When two registered users report an anon for inappropriate behaviour, and the "solution" is to lock the page, the message sent to all anons (and this one in specific) is clear: they can do whatever they want as long as they go big. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Page: Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.112.8.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: See notes after diffs

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [79] - 01:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC) restoration of insignificant content to lead that made treatment of the response to the organisation non-NPOV
2. [80] - "Undid revision 577652524 by AussieLegend"
3. [81] - restoration of category that had been removed because article is already in a subcat.
4. [82] - restoration of reworded version of content mentioned in diff #1
5. [83] - Restoration (again) of parent cat and completely changing note in the categories section

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [84][85]

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Attempts are in all sections except "Affiliated international legal entities".

Comments:
Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is an article that is periodically the subject of some emotional and POV editing, althoughit has been relatively stable for months. On 18 October User:76.112.8.146 changed that by editing the lead of the article in such a way that it introduced a negative POV into what should be a summary of the main points in the article.[86] Although it is well documented in the article, all mention of support for the organisation was removed from the lead and the opoosition was supplemented with a cherry-picked section from the "Government response" section which, in the great scheme of things is not all that significant. Because of this I reverted the edits but the content was restored and a citation needed tag was added to the content that was documented further in the article.[87] Since this time, the IP has persistently reverted changes to the article as shown in the diffs above. After the IP added a category of which the article was already a memeber of a subcat,[88] I noticed that there were other categories that needed to be removed and did so.[89] Category:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is a subcat of all of the categories that were removed. Meanwhile, the content that the IP had restored was removed by another editor. Subsequently, the IP restored a reworded, but still unnecessary, version of the content that he had previously added to the lead (there had been some rewording of the section by other editors but this seems appropriate), as well as the parent category.[90] Attempts to explain why the category had been removed[91][92] have been fruitless and the IP has again restored the category, as well as completely changing the note that I had left in the article for the benefit of those intending to add more categories, making it vague and useless.[93] The IP has even tried removing a category from Category:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society as a way of forcing his edits into the article.[94] Of the five editors who have edited the article since the IP first appeared, only the IP has been unable to collaborate constructively. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Hang on, I make good faith edits and you warn. I edit, you warn. I have been asking for help and you keep layering on the warning and reversions. I think it's funny that I keep trying to discuss it, following the BRD policy and everytime you disagree with my edit, you revert and warn. I'm surely not as good at you as reporting and documenting but anyone following your trail can see you've been doing the exact same things you're warning me of. I'm trying to remove POV from the article through discussion, collaboration and edits. You seem to be protecting it through templates, adding sarcastic looking welcome templates to my talk page, adding "tit for tat" and "3rr" warnings after doing the exact same thing yourself. I've read every warning you posted, double checked the policies and am trying to abide by them. But you MUST allow for your personal interest POV to decline in that article. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

And in regard to the category, sub categories of subcategories were created to attempt to remove the phrase "Eco-terorism" from showing on the categories at the bottom of the page, to the point where now they had invented a category solely for SSCS with nothing else in it so that they can argue "well it's already in a sub cat of a sub cat there's no need to put the eco-terrorim cat there any longer". Which does nothing for a reader of the article. Other admin have weighed in on the talk page that it should be there but that was ignored. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

There have been plenty of attempts to engage you on the article's talk page, your talk page and even my talk page. As I've just explained to you on my talk page,[95] removing Category:Eco-terrorism from the article has nothing to do with hiding "Eco-terrorism". The category is not required because it's already in a subcat. Even if Category:Organizations accused of piracy did not exist, Category:Eco-terrorism would not be on the article page because Category:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society would be a subcat of Category:Eco-terrorism. As for the "tit for tat" claim, that's disingenuous of you. As you well know, it was you who was adding "tit for tat" warnings, something I told you on your talk page.[96] Four minutes after I warned you,[97] you warned me.[98] Shortly after you received a later warning,[99] you again warned me.[100] And so on. This has not been the case with any of the other involved editors. And just an FYI, I was required to notify you of this discussion (it says so in big red letters at the top of this page). Removing that notification claiming that it was a personal attack is highly inappropriate.[101] --AussieLegend (✉) 15:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

"it was you who was adding "tit for tat" warnings, something I told you on your talk page" Heh, is it worth me pointing out the obvious at this point? I think the break'll do us both some good. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. I've locked the article for three days. Hopefully, the discussion on the talk page can be more constructive than it has been thus far. If not,
  dispute resolution should be the next step. I don't expect the edit war to continue after the lock expires. If it does, editors may be blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 17:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you sir. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem at the moment is that, despite numerous posts here, his talk page, my talk page and the article's talk page, the IP is persistent in the belief that categorisation "hides" things and I don't seem to be able to make him understand that it doesn't, even after directing him to

WP:CAT. He's even in denial about suppressing content in the article, " I don't believe I suppressed anything" were his very words.[102] This despite the fact that his very first edits to the article suppressed documented content in the article.[103] Perhaps you can explain categorisation to him, because I've had no luck. I'm pretty much done at this point. --AussieLegend (✉

) 18:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Good example, and keep reading to the present. Through discussion and collaboration I (and we) re-edited that positive statement to make more sense. It's now more grammatically correct and still just as positive. And now you say that I am suppressing the positive side of SSCS. Take a look at the current iteration of that sentence and tell me I am suppressing it. This is why I am feeling attacked. Even after coming to a consensus, Aussie is going to the beginning of the editing process and attacking my character instead of seeing the collaboration, recognizing that and continuing to more collaboration. I am trying right now to understand his position and he continues to insult my character on the SSCS talk page. I asked him politely there and on his own talk page to address the issue and to please stop addressing his view of my intelligence and character. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Page

Pubic hair (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC) "Added image to page"
2. 00:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC) "Added image to page"
3. 12:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC) "Added image to page"
4. 20:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC) "Added image to page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   "

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

New editor, only edit-warring to add his dick to article (told it was redundant). NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

First, NeilN, you made me burst out laughing with the "only edit-warring to add his dick to article" text. Second, because of your diff-links above, I just minutes ago noticed that he was changing the image with each edit (so maybe most of his additions are not technically reverts); apparently, he thought that all he had to do was change the image and it would be accepted. Third, editors who never respond to messages left on their talk pages (as though they didn't even know they got the messages or as though they didn't comprehend them), like the editor in question, irk me. Perhaps he didn't see the notifications at the top of his screen? After all, our

talk

) 20:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• No violation. Since the fourth revert was more than 24 hours after the first, it's not a 3RR issue, and given that this is a brand-new editor, I'm willing to say it's confusion rather than edit warring. I've posed a more thorough welcome to his talk page, let's see if that works. I'll keep an eye on it. —Darkwind (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Flyer22. I think that was an accurate, if somewhat exasperated, comment. Glad I could make you laugh though. I think they count as reverts as the same type of content is being added. It's like if an editor kept adding the same paragraph but changed some of the prepositions each time. Darkwind - no problem, thanks for keeping an on the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me}

23:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Exasperated? I didn't mean for it to bother you in that way, or for it to be a pain at all. Sorry about that.

talk

) 23:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

@

Flyer22 Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant my initial comment, the one that had you laughing, was written with a touch of exasperation at the editor. --NeilN ^{talk to me}

01:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Just a notice that Amshermar moved on to penis photos on Urinary meatus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Page:

Previous version reverted to: [104]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [105]
2. [106]
3. [107]
4. [108]
5. [109]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [110]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [111]

Comments:
User insists that BRD and 3RR do not apply. MilesMoney (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Page: Atlas (rocket family) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WDGraham (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [116]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [117]

Comments:

Editor is inconsistently operating in conflict with

I've reverted the original edit, and once more when the reporting user restored his content rather than participate in the discussion I had started. I'll post a detailed response in a second. --W. D. Graham 09:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I've had a couple of disagreements with the reporting user in the last 24 hours, on two separate but related pages. The first was on

WP:BRD once, and then reverted once more because I thought Ajh1492 had made a good-faith mistake. Had he reverted or edited further without discussion I would not have taken any action. --W. D. Graham

09:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The editor has been from my first contribution to the article and a properly posted

WP:BRD is not a process used to justify wholesale reverts. Ajh1492 (talk

) 10:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I opposed your proposed merger because I didn't think it would improve the encyclopaedia. "Destroy" was perhaps a poor choice of word, but that was my opinion and I expressed it, and I don't think that I was incivil in doing so. By "our" I was referring to the Wikipedia community. And yes, if you accuse somebody of disruptive editing they are probably going to take offence. --W. D. Graham 10:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

That said, I do apologise if my comments caused offence to you - that was certainly not my intention. Can we please try to find some way to move on and resolve this disagreement by discussing the articles and edits, not the editors. --W. D. Graham 10:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this is the right forum for this discussion - I agree there is a disagreement here, but I wouldn't characterise it as an edit war, and I'm the one who is trying to encourage discussion. Mainspace editing has stopped, and I don't think there's been enough time yet for the discussion to take place. I'd like to try and resolve this amicably - Ajh1492 escalated this so quickly that the discussion wasn't given a chance - and if that doesn't happen then we should go through dispute resolution, but I don't see how administrator intervention would benefit the discussion at the moment. --W. D. Graham 10:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Wholesale reverts of good-faith editing efforts without ANY discussion is not good WP etiquette and not in the spirit of

WP:OWN issue. The open hostility ("'destroy our coverage" [125]) towards any good-faith editing is disturbing. Ajh1492 (talk

) 10:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

You've been

WP:BRD. --W. D. Graham

11:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Unless requested by an uninvolved party, I'm not going to make any further comments in this particular thread as I feel it is going nowhere. There's no edit war and no 3RR violations; I acknowledge that I am partly at fault for the dispute, but there are faults on both sides and I'm willing to accept that and move on. What we need is a calm, civilised discussion of the content issues, not accusations flying back and forth which is what this is turning into. I'm also going to take a 48 hour break from editing starting now because this discussion has got me so wound up that my last couple of comments on the matter have maybe not been as civil as they could have been. Ajh, please can we go back to the article talk page, put aside our differences and try to find a solution to the problem? --W. D. Graham 11:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• No violation. WDGraham has reverted twice. The "reverts" listed in this report are links, not diffs, and they show the three reverts of both parties (Ajh1492 has reverted once). I didn't look at anything but this article and this article's talk page, but both parties should not be reacting negatively to each other's comments. As such discussions go, any conduct comments are pretty mild. I agree with WDGraham that the two of you should go back to the talk page and discuss the issues. If you can't resolve them, then use
  dispute resolution, and this board is not the best place to do that.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 14:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

Csi.southpark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 577976191 by Dailycare (talk) Unsourced claim. But I see that this is going to be a problem so I removed everyone."
2. 04:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 577933296 by Sepsis II (talk) give me a break that is a lie, check the sources and google it for yourself. Stop the vendetta"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

See User_talk:Csi.southpark#1RR_violation_at_Israel_article for some background. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The article is restricted to 1RR. The user also violated 1RR at Israel article [126] & [127], and then self-reverted. AsceticRosé 17:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I removed something that I wrote. I did this because I realized the having the article say the Jewish people and Samaritans descend from Canaanites is, while true, going to cause problems so I simply removed it. And yes in the process I also removed what someone else added to my edit. But had I left my original comment in place with the other users edit. It would have caused more problems. So I'm sorry that I violated the 24 hour rule, but what would you have had me do. Csi.southpark (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

He has reverted, let it go. Sepsis II (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Sepsis II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csi.southpark (talk • contribs) 19:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Page: Piz Gloria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (and others)
User being reported: Jerry Pepsi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [149]
2. [150]
3. [151]
4. [152]
5. [153]

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive815#Jerry_Pepsi and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_14#Category:Bond_girls They've had warnings for edit warring from three independent authors already – see also User_talk:Jerry_Pepsi#October_2013.

The crux of this is about categorization related to the James Bond films. They've stripped locations from the general film category, sometimes with (but frequently not) with the edit summary "locations aren't defined by being in a film". They have a point, but there are cases when there is a significant relationship worthy of categorization (see discussion on the ANI link). Likewise "Series characters are not independently notable" (from their attempt to delete yet another category at

There is no support for their deletions from other editors (see the ANI link), just concern over their edit-warring and their attitude to other editors. The greatest support they've had so far was mine, and that was pretty sparing. They've made no real attempt to discuss these changes, not gained any support for them, and where reverted they're edit-warring to push their unique viewpoint. Mostly they reject discussion as not being "ON AN APPROPRIATE TALK PAGE", which seems to mean any location other than where other editors are already trying to discuss it. Their ANI response was basically stonewalling. I raised this Bond issue at Category_talk:James_Bond_films#Subcatting_to_James_Bond_locations.3F, but they've ignored that too.

They've also listed Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_14#Category:Bond_girls for deletion and prodded at least one individual entry from it, Tatiana Romanova. Clearly an editor who just doesn't like James Bond, or categorization. A look over their entire editing history (it doesn't take long) shows the view that the way to build an encyclopedia is to delete it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Note. The problem is I see no real consensus at ANI. One administrator told Jerry that he should follow
  WP:BRD, which he isn't doing, but I wouldn't call that a consensus. At the same time, when I look at the article you reported here and at Nene Valley Railway, both of you are edit-warring. Jerry may be more in the wrong by not discussing it after you revert his edit, but that doesn't entitle you to battle it out. You may find another administrator who will view this differently, but my suggestion is to go back to ANI if you want to establish that Jerry's removal of these cats is sanctionable.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 00:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Page: Geiger counter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 47.64.227.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [154]
2. [155]
3. [156]
4. [157]

Long-term edit-warring and socking by Europefan (talk · contribs) to categorize anything and everything as German inventions. This is now bright-line 3RR EW by this one unconfirmed IPsock. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Already blocked by User:Rschen7754 for sock puppetry.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Page: Paul R. Ehrlich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 99.238.140.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [158]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [159]
2. [160]
3. [161]
4. [162]
5. [163]
6. [164]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [165]

Exhortations to take the addition to the talk page:[166], [167] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [168]

Comments:
Although not breaking 3RR right now, IP is clearly edit warring against multiple editors, has previously broken 3RR before, has received multiple warnings, and has been blocked for exactly this same offense. (See his talk page,[169] which he has now blanked, showing that he has read it.[170]) IP comes back to edit war over exactly the same issue after his block expired.

Action should be taken to prevent defamatory material from being continually re-inserted into a BLP. LK (talk) 08:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Declined to block as I'm not seeing a 3RR violation, but I've placed the page under pending changes. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Page: