Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive236

Page: 2014 Winter Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive236/userlinks

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5] & [6]
5. [7]
6. [8]
7. [9] (this revert was done after edit warring warning by admin)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]

Comments:

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion, removed as "nonsense" → [12]

--IIIraute (talk) 04:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Warning: Ownership of articles noticeboard discussion, removed as remove nonsense!!!!!!→ [13]--Cityinfonorns (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Page: Music for Millions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Toccata quarta (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. [diff]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

I'm not sure if I'm doing this correctly, but this person keeps reverting my plot of this moving because I've added "too many links to Wiki (for the character actors) and because I signed the page. He apparently wants an outside link for the plot and a similar one is on TCM. I wrote the plot while watching the movie. Do we seriously have to find a written sources for movie plots??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Toccata_quarta Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:

I've asked for clarification, but all I get is reverts. Okay, so I signed the wrong page, but how do you cite a movie plot? I was trying to give more plot - am I restricted to just a blurb because that's what's published? If I am in the wrong here, I will be the first to apologize, but this persons history makes me wary. Zabadu (talk) 06:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Result: User:Zabadu is warned they may be blocked if they continue to revert without getting consensus first. They have made 3 reverts while Toccata is only at two reverts. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are available to both of you. Zabadu, you did not notify the other party of the 3RR complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Page

Jeremy Piven (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Dr Shempenstein (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 19:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC) to 20:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
   1. 19:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Career */"
   2. 20:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Career */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 19:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC) to 19:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
   1. 19:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Career */"
   2. 19:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Career */"
3. 17:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Career */"
4. 02:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Career */"
5. Consecutive edits made from 01:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC) to 01:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
   1. 01:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Career */"
   2. 01:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* External links */"
   3. 01:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* External links */"
6. 01:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Career */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Jeremy Piven */ new section"
2. 21:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 07:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Content dispute - Music video */ 3O response"

Comments:

User has admitted a personal connection to the producer of the video he keeps trying to add to the page. There are 3 of us reverting his edits and telling him to work it out on the talk page, but we're hitting the point where we're reaching our own 3R limits. I got involved because of a 3O request. Wieno (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Warned Has not reverted since warned. Next time warn earlier. John (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Page

List of music considered the worst (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "do the right thing and leave it be, the beatles are regarded as the most important band in history by fans and critics alike"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also using IP User:82.132.224.38 and User:82.132.224.8. Has history of challenged reverts, edit warring, and blanking. Looking at the other two IPs, multiple warnings have been given in the past and at least one block for disruptive editing. Appears to be an edit warring and vandalism-only account.

Other reverts from the other IPs on this particular article found here [14] and here [15]

Warnings given on other IP pages here [16] and here [17]

Unfortunately, because the IP addresses keep changing, a block will not likely work for long. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two months. The use of a fluctuating IP in an edit war violates
  WP:SOCK. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 23:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Ghassanid Page, User Lazyfoxx (Result: Malformed)

Hello. I believe that User Lazyfoxx keeps obsessively reverting my edits on the Ghassanids page, removing my sources at will, which I believe is Wikipedia vandalism, and replacing them with incredibly unreliable sham internet sources found via original research to back his pre-existing biased opinion. He undoes all my hard efforts to improve the page within a day or so of the edit, and is obsessed to have the page based on the version he wnats. The page has been an edit-war between myself and him for some time now. I have tried conflict resolution and unilaterally offered compromises to him to no avail. Can I pleaserequest further editor help and mediation n the article, and perhaps article protection based on the most reliable sources judged by third parties. Many thanks for your help. SaSH172 (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete
  diffs..--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 01:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Page

Thom Loverro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

APZ982 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 22:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC) to 22:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
   1. 22:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 22:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC) ""
   3. 22:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 00:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 02:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC) ""
5. 17:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC) ""
6. 18:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC) ""
7. 18:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC) ""
8. 18:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC) ""
9. 18:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC) ""
10. 19:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC) ""
11. Consecutive edits made from 20:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC) to 20:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
    1. 20:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC) ""
    2. 20:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC) ""
12. 20:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor warned repeatedly: [18], [19], [20], [21] RolandR (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Page: Larry Norman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

"(cur | prev) 17:28, 5 February 2014‎ Walter Görlitz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50,382 bytes) (-992)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by 71.168.245.210 (talk): Primary source lies. (TW)) (undo | thank)" Edit added: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Norman&diff=594071982&oldid=594063528 Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Norman&diff=594077979&oldid=594071982

Diffs of the user's reverts: For history see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Norman&action=history The user is trying different methods of editing my material out to dodge infractions.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Walter_G%C3%B6rlitz

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Larry_Norman I posted at the bottom of the talk page, and on the user's talk page as well. Seems to be just ignoring my posts.

Comments:
Apologies if this is formatted poorly. This is my first attempt at this. Any tidying would be greatly appreciated.

Startropic1 (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad this came up. I was just about to go to RSN, because even after a compromise edit I feel very uneasy about the page, but this forum should do. Let's look at the "source" being added. Here's one of the adds and here's the source: http://www.thetruthaboutlarrynorman.com/news/recantations. Some background: the website that this "source" is hosted on is an attack site levelled against a documentary film that brings-up some damning evidence against the subject of the article.

1. First, the author of this "story" is Alan Coughlin. There's no other story on the site by this author and there's no indication that the author has any credibility. No other writing credits by the author. However there is someone who goes by that name who writes a blog: http://www.alancoughlin.com/Blog/TheSubjectiveAspectOfTheGospel.jsp
2. Second, there's no statement of editorial oversight or anything that would help this site to meet the standards set at
   WP:RS
   .
3. Third, there's no support for this statements made by Newman. It would be good to know the circumstances of the interview. Some of the statements were made on the interviewee's Facebook page, but there isn't a link to it to confirm that this is the case.
4. "David Di Sabatino told my friend that he planned to destroy Larry Norman with this movie." We have an unnamed "friend" who made a claim. This already sounds unreliable. Could you imagine going to your editor and saying that? The truth is that this "claim" has been made by various fans of Norman's and have been refuted by the director. The back-and-forth happens in Larry Norman fan sites and discussion boards.
5. The title of the page and the addition to the article claim that Newman "recanted". I don't see a recantation anywhere in the story. To recant, is "to announce in public that your past beliefs or statements were wrong and that you no longer agree with them" I see "I ... decided to remove myself and all the pictures I let him use of Larry and I." I don't see her saying that her past statements on Norman were wrong. She does say that she is "sorry [she] even shared anything with [Di Sabatino]. He just twisted my words and left out the most important part". I'm not sure how Newmans words were twisted, and Newman does not go on to clarify how that was the case. There was clearly editing out of material.

The whole thing fails

and should be removed. If the material passes RS then keep it in. If the prose pass an third-party review, I'll agree, but the addition to the article is poorly written, biased, sourced by material that does not pass RS and is certainly below standards for Wikipedia.

As for ignoring posts Startropic1, the discussion made on the article's talk page wasn't made by Startropic1 but by the anon. I didn't see the discussion because they were added during my commute. (I must stop having a real life). The warning on my talk page fails

) 19:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Some rebuttals:

• You seem to suggest the director as a reliable source. While in fairness, he IS the director of the film, the information in question is material that he is hardly the primary source for. It has become clear that he tampered with some of the interviews and some of the people interviewed are suspect as well. Furthermore his body of work prior to the Larry Norman film, and his notoriety puts his credibility in serious doubt.

• If you go to the previous URL, http://www.failedangle.com you are redirected to the new site that I added to the Wikipedia page. It is run by the authorized biographer of the Larry Norman Estate, Allen Flemming. I have noted this several times but you don't seem to be able to grasp this. If you bothered looking through the site, you would find numerous recordings of Larry and Pamela along with transcripts, there are no sources more primary than that! See them here: http://www.thetruthaboutlarrynorman.com/shot-down/pam-newman/

Here are more sources:

Failed Angle facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Failed-Angle/114494451912560

Archived copy of the original Failed Angle page: http://archive.is/eAgqg

I'm getting tired of people like David Di Sabatino and supporters of his like yourself that continue to besmirch Larry Norman, and spread lies about him all over the internet conveniently after he has passed away and can no longer defend himself against your lies. If the sources I have cited are insufficient, then all mention of the Fallen Angel film and the lies it suggests should be removed from the page as that film and its director are far less credible than the sources I have provided. Also for the record, I was the anon because I didn't immediately login until after the malicious edits began.

• Lastly, you technically didn't violate Wikipedia policies because you proceeded to edit out my material in different ways to circumvent the limits. Rather than doing the prohibited 3rd undo, you instead created a new edit, thus circumventing that rule.

Startropic1 (talk) 02:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you think that I consider the director to be a RS. Is that why I had his article deleted from Wikipedia? I will elaborate below.

While Ian Flemming is the authorized biographer, that simply means he has a conflict of interest in discussing Mr. Norman. He is certainly free to publish a book to set the record straight. If it's self-published, it wouldn't meet RS any more than his self-published websites are. If he can get it published by a reputable publishing house, it will be. Regardless, I will buy the book and read it with great interest.

I am not "a supporter" of Di Sabatino. I'm a supporter of FC Bayern Munich. I'm a supporter of Vancouver Whitecaps FC. I can understand how you have come to the conclusion that I'm supporter: because I don't toe the Norman family party line on Mr. Norman and remove unbalanced information on Wikipedia, but that's not the case. In fact, I was accused of being a fan in a recent Facebook event notification of the documentary by someone who really does hate Mr. Norman.

With that in mind, there are no lies in the documentary. There some very one-sided statements though. If there were lies, the Norman estate would have taken Di Sabatino to court. They haven't. So while I don't think that the director is a reliable source, I do think that his film is, and I can back that up. I also think that the sources you have added do not meet

WP:RS

and should be removed immediately.

Now, I will point you once again to

WP:NPA

and ask you to retract your statement that I am spreading lies about Mr. Norman ("can no longer defend himself against your lies"). You may use simple <s></s> tagging around the statement.

Lastly, even if I had reverted your material, I would not have violated 3RR, that only happens on the fourth revert. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

In regards to Allen (not Ian btw) Flemming having a conflict of interest, this is incorrect. He has been given direct access to a mountain of legal documents & recordings left behind by Mr. Norman. Apparently Mr. Norman had the foresight to document a lot of pertinent information. Mr. Flemming previously stated that the biography he will be publishing will include Mr Norman's faults, which no one suggests that Larry Norman was a perfect saint. He has hardly been biased in what he has shared thus far. How are documents and recordings he shares on his site which are DIRECTLY from the Larry Norman Estate NOT valid sources?!

In regards to the assertion that the Norman family would have sued Di Sabatino if the film was full of lies. As a matter of fact, they DID sue him. Among other things Di Sabatino used Larry Norman's music without permission. In the end, the Normans decided to abandon the fight because they didn't want to bother wasting anymore of the Estate's limited funds, (Larry had significant medicals bills to get paid), on a film they believed "few people would even see." It is unfortunate that people associated with Di Sabatino litter sites like Youtube with clips of the film to futher propogate his lies. The truth can become a lie when it is intentionally removed from context as Di Sabatino most certainly did with the entirety of his film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Startropic1 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Article fully protected two weeks. Please use this time to reach agreement on the disputed items. The WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard can help with sourcing questions, like the usability of http://thetruthaboutlarrynorman.com or Facebook as a source. User:Startropic1 should carefully read our policy on WP:Reliable sources. Both parties are warned to stop describing the other's statements as lies. Startropic's reference to 'malicious edits' by Walter had better not go further. If this continues, blocking for personal attacks should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Page: Stop Islamization of America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Livingengine1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [each revert is explained below]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [22] removes sourced material, claiming that it's "not supported by the citation offered." The material removed is explicitly stated in the source, an academic book, to the point of using some of the same language.
2. [23] makes the same edit, this time claiming that the author hasn't cited any evidence to support the statement, which is erroneous on several counts: a. that she explicitly cites her source, and b. that it's not his job to decide that he's more knowledgeable than this scholar.
3. [24] makes the same edit, claiming that the content is "not supported by anything in the world."
4. [25] same edit. In all of these he's claimed that BLP is being violated, in spite of having it pointed out to him that BLP is not a blanket exemption for removing anything you personally dislike and that quality sources like this one strengthen BLP.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26] warning for blanking, after which he repeated the edit several more times.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: surely the user who wants to change the status quo should try to gain consensus? There's been discussion going on in this section in which I, Livingengine1 (the edit-warring user), and Binksternet have participated, but Bink and I have both been unsuccessful in trying to get Livingengine1 to articulate any actionable problems with the article, which he seems to view as a personal affront - including the cited text he's so determined to censor.

Comments:
Note that the fourth revert here falls juuuust outside the 24-hour window. Whether that half-hour gap is an attempt to game the system or not seems unimportant; the user is edit-warring without discussion to remove well-sourced material because it offends his personal sensibilities, and literally lying about the sources in order to justify doing so as well as spuriously waving at policies that don't apply. Also, this is a single-purpose account whose agenda on Wikipedia is to smear American Muslim organizations, as his edit history shows, and he's been taken to task in the past for edit-warring to include obvious BLP violations; it seems the faux concern for BLP extends only as far as it allows him to promote anti-Muslim organizations and smear Muslim ones.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Bishonen | talk 05:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC) )

Page: Australian Greens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Andreas11213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [27]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [28] 18:26, 5 February 2014
2. [29] 19:55, 5 February 2014
3. [30] 21:29, 5 February 2014
4. [31] 21:51, 5 February 2014
5. [32] 22:02, 5 February 2014
6. [33] 22:03, 5 February 2014
7. [34] 17:49, 6 February 2014

Also possible that this IP revert is from the same user, as the same IP turned up to revert to an earlier edit of User:Andreas11213 at Tanya Plibersek

Same user also engages in multiple-reverts at George W. Bush

1. [35]
2. [36]
3. [37]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [39]

Comments:

This user has similarly edit warred in the past 24 hours at Liberal Party of Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 07:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 days Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: User-multi error: "Stigmatella aurantiaca" is not a valid project or language code (help).

<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser&oldid=594078989>

Previous version reverted to: [40]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [41]
2. [42]
3. [43]
4. makes clear that he will revert again and it concerns numerous edits over 2 months

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: fresh start

Stigmatella aurantiaca has reverted 2 months of editing without referring to a Wiki deletion rule and without discussion this revert on the talk page. The revert has been supported by Patrick0Moran and 129.217.159.124 (which declared that he has no plans to edit himself). None of them has questioned the edits during the last 2 months. Also at the moments of revert none of them has given arguments what was wrong in all those edits to justice a complete revert in stead of editing. There is only one small part which has caused an extended discussion, but that does involve all other edits. Therefore reverting so many edits without referring to Wiki deletion rules is not acceptable

DParlevliet (talk) 11:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Response by Stigmatella aurantiaca

First of all, thanks for protecting the page.

DParlevliet has made three reverts in the last 24 hours against consensus, two reverts of my edits, and one of Patrick0Moran's edits, as expressed in the following diffs:

Diffs of DParlevliet's reverts:

• 18:15, 5 February 2014‎
• 19:28, 5 February 2014
• 08:25, 6 February 2014

DParlevliet's entire history of contributions since 07:41, 1 October 2013‎ has been of adding material expressing his POV against the consensus of (1) Patrick0Moran, (2) an anonymous IP who has actual experience in the field (who argued extensively with DParlevliet on the talk page but refrained from actually editing the article himself), and (3) myself.

The anonymous IP (who has recently opened up an account as Cthugha82) summarized the situation in the following talk page diff. In this diff, he recommended that we revert to the 1 Oct 2013 revision of the article. Patrick0Moran and I were in agreement on this issue.

• 16:57, Talk page: 5 February 2014

DParlevliet claims that "None of them has questioned the edits during the last 2 months." This is a completely false claim, as can be seen from even a cursory perusal of the talk page. (I'm a relatively recent addition to the debate so was not involved in most of these debates.) The pattern, repeated over and over, was that Patrick0Moran and 129.217.159.124 would argue with DParlevliet, but DParlevliet would completely ignore our recommendations and would proceed to edit the article the way he wanted. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• I support what Stigmatella aurantiaca has reported immediately above. I have been editing Wikipedia articles for several years and have rarely seen contributors who fail to give responsive answers to my questions about their edits or understandings the way he does. The difficulty is compounded because his native language appears to be Dutch (see his talk page) and his English is so poor that it is often difficult to determine even what he is trying to communicate. His main point appears to be that the several authors of "A double-slit quantum eraser," all university professors, have argued according to quantum mechanics and reached one conclusion (that is at the heart of their experiment design if not at the heart of their mathematics) but that he can correctly support an opposite conclusion by the use of what he calls the "rules" of classical physics. The paper is available at http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0106078%E2%80%8E. On many basic points (such as how and when quantum interference is manifested) he appears to be uninformed. I have endeavored to remain polite, question only the validity of his assertions, and provide him missing information (such has how BBO crystals can be used to produce entangled photons, a crucial part of the experiment design). However, he is extremely resistant to giving responsive replies to objections, always insisting that others argue from his premises. It is not just that he maintains his edits in opposition to the critiques of others, but that it quickly becomes impossible even to explore what he is trying to say. The IP editor, who must deal with real-world quantum-mechanical issues in optics as part of his work and therefore cannot have maintained any misconceptions for long, has tried to explain to him why his classical approach is inapplicable. He has been very patient, but he finally left the discussion in disgust.

While we have been trying to get a major issue that lies at the heart of problems I have with his edits on several related articles, many less central issues have been put in abeyance. It is difficult to fix a vague English formulation while not clear on what the writer was trying to communicate, and I believe that the IP and I have both attempted to prioritize the fundamental issues. P0M (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Response by DParlevliet

All comments above concerns the one disputed paragraph as I mentioned in my report. I have agreed to edit and improve this paragraph. A quick look into the article history [[45]] shows that until 2 February no edit was disputed nor reverted. Also after the blockage none of the editors above gave an accepted reason for deletion according Wiki rules. Therefore I propose to go back to the last not disputed version [[46]] and start editing from there. I have no problem in deleting the disputed paragraph until I have improved it DParlevliet (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Page

People's Liberation Army Navy Surface Force (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "tidy-up and minor restructure"
2. 12:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "tidy-up and minor restructure"
3. 14:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 594979949 by NeilN (talk)"
4. 14:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 594980453 by NeilN (talk)"
5. 14:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 594980665 by Dan653 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   "

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Undid non consensus edits Feb 10 */"

Comments:

Likely sock of [47] who has been harassing Antiochus the Great for days. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 3 days JohnCD (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Page: The English Patient (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SharpQuillPen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [48]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [49]
2. [50]
3. [51]
4. [52]
5. [53]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [55] [56] [57]

Comments:

I have tried to work with this editor. Some of his arguments have been accepted just today. (See [58]). The particular difficulty has to do with content that no editor has questioned since its inclusion in 2010. When I warned about too much reverting, he responded, "Good!" --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I was just about to lodge a concern here as well. Are you not the same contributor that has issued 3 revert warning endlessly to all the participants that have been involved lately. except one, I believe and that has been since you contacted that person to say that you were having trouble. This was after you lodged a dispute resolution claim, was preliminarily suggested that your contribution could be replaced and then you never responded to the request for rebuttal. Then you had the whole article, or at least the plot, reverted to a version that did not reflect all the corrections that had been made after that time. This revert caused some non-plot content to be distorted and thus no longer correct as it was before. You have been rude to people actually insulting in the edit summaries and on the TALK page. You even questioned someone's primary language, called someone arrogant as to think that only Europeans could study and map an ancient site and that exploration since Columbus has been nothing but genocide.

The article as it now stands is remarkably far different than what it was three months ago including numerous attributions, some quoted, that after an issue about the suitability of "gasoline" being included in the plot, were found to be erroneous and possibly transfers that existed in that version two months ago. A transcript of the dialogue in the movie was found to determine those facts. You came to a speculative conclusion about gasoline being in the movie by using with out due diligence a draft copy that lacked most of the dialogue and ended with Katherine in the cave. You then announced to the group that gasoline did not appear in the movie. And as if that were not enough then went on to speculate that "airplane fuel" should be used totally based on speculation when you yourself would [not] let stay in the article speculation, interpretation and assumption. There have been great efforts to portray the plot with that information in which can be verified by the content of the movie. All that needs to be done is some incorrect characterization which then down the line people start using as a source when it can be found that in such things as movie review[s and] [removed comma] book content has been included making some people think the movie has far more explanation than it does.

The issue in question is that was Almasy's 3 day walk to El Tag in scorching weather. The answer is, according to the content of that part of the movie, no. There is not indication that the weather was unpleasant despite it being desert. Now mind you, the area of concern includes where the cave is located a mountainous plateau. El Tag is also on an uplift in the area albeit 3 days walk. You assert that by scenes elsewhere depicting heat is enough to interpret/speculate/assume that it was hot when he walked. A desert is marked by extreme temps and being arid. Not necessarily hot all the time. Palm Springs, California is a perfect example that follows much the same temperature pattern as that part of the Sahara. It can be assumed that if it is arid, drinking water is scarce. He is in the sun for an extend period of time. Anyone can get heat exhaustion from merely exerting themselves without proper supplies. It does not need to be hot. That is why when people think that when it is overcast and they do not mind having been exposed for a prolonged period of time that they find they have sunburned and possibly get heat stroke. That is regardless of heat. To speculate based on other scenes in the movie is not for what Wiki strives. The sequence of the film cannot be used as a timeline because it is non-linear. It was edited that way. It did not follow the final script. So to say that someone is being difficult is insincere and a wrong characterization. This has been the situation with every contribution to the group.SharpQuillPen (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Now that I have had a chance to review "the evidence", you can insist on something all you want but if it did not happen it is not fact. It is never mentioned in the dialogue when it clearly could have been. Also, since the film was not edited according to the final script, what reference there may have been to describe any anticipated difficulties with the walk could have made the cutting room floor. "Lured"? That was a conclusion of Almasy during his explanation of what happened for the period to which Caravaggio sought answers. It is absent from any scene previously. The intent of picking up Almasy at the camp was to bring him back to Cairo. If Katherine knew that she had been lured she does not say. She does not even speculate. So to say that Geoffrey lured her is speculation, well assumed, but just speculation based on Almasy's after the fact interpretation. So if the issue of scorching and lured are to be included in the plot then they should appropriately be characterized as speculation, interpretation or assumption. But the fact remains that in both situations they are not portrayed in the film as such.SharpQuillPen (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

CLARIFICATIONS MARKED BY []SharpQuillPen (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, before this goes any further, the TALK page will document well the amount of discussion and justification for these particular changes. A discussion was open for the entire plot which would have been useful to go through the text from beginning to end in one swop to avoid never ending changes. Ring Cinema responded that we will discuss these issues and then opened new additional discussions on the same text without presenting to the group that maybe these issues should be treated individually. That is the pattern of Ring Cinema, unilateral action regarding the text of the plot. If Ring Cinema did not take possession of everything that is in the content then there would not be so many reverts of what makes it to the plot.SharpQuillPen (talk) 02:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

This complaint has nothing to do with the "gasoline" issue, however it is instructive. When the evidence was presented, I agreed that it was correct to use the word 'gasoline'. That is good editing. There has been no further dispute on this content issue since the evidence was presented on the Talk page. That is not a problem.

Secondly, have I issued other 3RR warnings? Yes, it is true that I have issued such warnings when editors revert enough to receive a warning. There is nothing suspicious about that; neither is it germane to this complaint, as far as I know.

Regarding the matter of the heat in the desert, I would simply mention that the word 'scorching' has been used continuously in this article since May 2010. It was included in one of the first expansions of the plot summary beyond a stub. No other editor seems to have found it objectionable. I am open to an argument that the desert heat was not scorching as depicted in the film, but I don't see anything persuasive on offer there and it seems to be a longstanding consensus for more than three years. Absent a good reason, it seems more accurate to say it was "scorching" than not to say it, particularly since the heat has a disastrous effect on the main character. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

--The gasoline issue just illustrate that YOU will not allow ANY to insert language in specifically the plot until they provide you with absolute evidence. Yet there are countless times of when others have suggested language and you reverted it. With the gasoline issue it was said to you countless times and since no one had provided any "evidence" you would continually change it. Then in an attempt to prove your assertion which by the way was total speculation since the item to be fueled was a plane that obviously it had to be airplane fuel. You got trumped when the source you used turned out to be reviewed without due diligence. So, it was permissible for you to include speculation but not others. So you continue to fail to recognize that you have such a dominate presence in the plot that everything is connected to you regardless as to who suggested it. You even have the audacity in the edit summaries to say such terms as what was suggested was acceptable to you, not a consensus of the group. And by the way, when you were commenting on the transcript that was provided of the dialogue [you] seem to have the impression, for what reason I do not know, that it was written by the person who submitted[,] commenting that the person submitting it had misspelled gasoline when in fact it was clearly presented as being directly from the source.

As for scorching, how long did "Afrika Corps" appear instead of Germans, which the former never was dialogue in the film. How long was "north to Benghazi" included and never justified by quote in the film according to the dialogue transcript. This just goes to show that the article has contained various inaccuracies that with a review of the dialogue transcript shows how fallacious transfers from the book, that sometimes made it into reviews and stories about the movie, made it into the plot. And then if in plot, although based on speculation, is used by countless people to give a proper characterization of that instance in the film. But it does not exit in the released version. Even when it is pointed out that a statement made by you in the plot, was not an accurate characterization, the pattern repeats about continual reverts, reverts, reverts. And that is the situation with scorching. You assume and speculate that because there are scenes of a hot desert that it is hot all the time. That is just not true. The Palm Springs, California example has been already been brought up and still you refuse to accept, despite no evidence during those portions of the film (the plane crashing; Katherine being in the cave and Almasy getting to El Tag) to think other than that the desert was hot (24/7/365). Since there is no direct dialogue or visual representation in those scenes then to state so is total speculation. It very well may have been included in the script used for the filming and it very well may have been filmed. But it did not make it into the released version, if it existed. But, remember that we are talking about the content of the movie; not the final script. And the dialogue transcript clearly points out that no representation of any heat had an affect on Almasy on his 3 day walk. His exhausted presence when he gets to El Tag is totally explainable by the exertion of a three day walk with out proper supplies. Did the sun affect him? Probably. But then it would affect anyone in an arid environment without supplies and exposed to the sun although the temperature may be in the 60sF and 70sF if so at the time (which we do not know). At least in Lawrence of Arabia we see them tenting themselves in their garb during the day to protect themselves from the sun (as well as the heat when they crossed that particular desert during a very disagreeable time with the waves of heat rolling across the horizon. We do not see that in the released version of The English Patient.

Reverts. Not germane to this issue? Previously, you filed for a dispute resolution mediation. Everyone that was asked to participate did so except for you. And when closing that matter the mediator said that a decision could not be made because all the parties were not willing to participate. You lodged a concern and then felt, for whatever reason, that either you did not have to defend your position or did not defend it in or to thwart a decision that was already made against your original imbedded sentence. The mediator attempt to bring about a consensus by suggesting language and in fact some of that language had previously been suggested in the TALK page but you disregarded it and then lodged the dispute. That's cooperation? It seems that there is a pattern of threatening people, that you will lodge a 3 revert policy complaint for those that changed YOUR characterizations, and then when you were challenged to do so, do not follow through. That happened to me several times from you and each time I welcomed a review and no follow through came about. This last time, again, you issued a threat and instead of lodging a 3 revert complaint came to this board. Just as I said at the beginning of my statement that I was just about to lodge one myself after I had asked for advice about it and was directed to this process. So, yes. I did say "Good" because I had intended to do it myself. But it is not who did it first but who is characterizing the content of the film accurately. Holding firm on the truth is not being a tendentious contributor, so do not attempt to throw that out into this issue because it goes no where. Well, when it comes to the truth, the characterization is just as important as the facts. That is how you avoid characterizing people, events or issues with out a POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SharpQuillPen (talk • contribs) 07:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Changes in [].SharpQuillPen (talk) 07:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think any of this has anything to do with the edit warring. SQP lacks a consensus for the change he is proposing and has only offered OR as an argument. His participation in the discussion has been accusatory and not accepted by other editors. --Ring Cinema (talk) 08:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment Three accounts (User:LimeyCinema1960, User:WordWrightUSA, User:SharpQuillPen) all registered within three days of each other and all have spent an unholy amount of time editing/commenting at The English Patient (film). Here is the interaction between all three: [59]. This activity looks deeply suspicous to me and any admin who takes on this case should be aware of it. Betty Logan (talk) 08:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Rebuttal

Registration is merely that--registration. It does not account for time spent on the site when not registered. I have been using the site for several years and decided to register so that when I wanted to contribute whatever format others contributors had available so the same would be available to me. If you wish to say that all three concentrated on TEP then how do you explain the other articles to which contributions were made. It would appear that the work on TEP was not only on the plot. As I saw new things added to TEP article I would look at the coding to see how things were done to see if I could do the same especially when there seem to have been some thing that changed a sortable table. Does that mean if we all worked on similar stuff of the article we are the same or just took a gander at seeing what was appearing on the page and then working through it to see if it was possible. There was always the cancel button and the review button. Work was done on the other aspects of the article as well as other articles as can be seen with the following taken from the contribution pages of each:

WordWrightUSA

•18:30, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,534)‎ . . Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard ‎ (→‎Summary of dispute by WordWrightUSA: Is Wikipedia Obligated To The Sentence?) •05:41, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+20)‎ . . m Hugh Henry Brackenridge ‎ (link) (current) •05:34, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-4)‎ . . m Mark Abley ‎ (→‎Selected bibliography: link) (current) •05:31, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . Mark Abley ‎ (link) •05:24, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+4)‎ . . Mark Abley ‎ (link) •05:22, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+4)‎ . . List of Canadian writers ‎ (→‎A: link) •05:19, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+45)‎ . . m List of Canadian writers ‎ (→‎A: link) •05:13, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-19)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (link) •05:08, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-9)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (link) •05:05, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+9)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (link) •05:03, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (link) •04:25, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+4)‎ . . Sri Lanka ‎ (→‎Visual, literary and performing arts: link) •04:23, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+9)‎ . . Sri Lanka ‎ (→‎Visual, literary and performing arts: link) •04:21, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+2)‎ . . Sri Lanka ‎ (→‎Visual, literary and performing arts: link) •04:16, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-9)‎ . . Sri Lanka ‎ (→‎Visual, literary and performing arts: link) •04:14, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+7)‎ . . Sri Lanka ‎ (→‎Visual, literary and performing arts: link) •04:11, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+30)‎ . . Sri Lanka ‎ (→‎Visual, literary and performing arts: link) •04:07, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-8)‎ . . Michael Ondaatje ‎ (link) (current) •04:05, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+27)‎ . . Michael Ondaatje ‎ (link) •01:41, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+27)‎ . . Michael Ondaatje ‎ (links) •01:31, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+42)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (link) •17:15, 27 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-4)‎ . . m László Almásy ‎ (→‎Interwar period: correct link)

LimeyCinema1960

•08:30, 26 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+259)‎ . . Talk:Ralph Fiennes ‎ (→‎Fiennes USE: new section) (current) •08:25, 26 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Ralph Fiennes ‎ •08:19, 26 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-3)‎ . . m Ralph Fiennes ‎ (starred is a misused word.) •02:44, 26 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,448)‎ . . Talk:The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎the dashing Hungarian: definition and repetition) •02:05, 26 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-22)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Plot: the types of plane(s) is irrelevant to the plot and unnecessary detail that removing from the article has been the objective identified long ago to make it proper quality.) •02:00, 26 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-5)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Plot: In one of the reminiscences clearly it is said that it is gasoline that is traded not airplane fuel.) •01:47, 26 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+40)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (insert sortable table) •01:37, 26 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+210)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Awards And Honors) •01:05, 26 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-11)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (redundant and repetitive phrase often used in high school papers for alliterative puffery) •01:02, 26 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,551)‎ . . Talk:The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Not Cairo: possible time limits.) •23:10, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Cast: fix {}) •23:10, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+212)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Cast: insert sortable table) •22:48, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-12)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (superfluous and redundant phrase often used in gratuitously since the "he had been" is already establishes an end with "spell the end to" ; common superlative that just adds antiquity to the composition of the sentence.) •22:42, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+18)‎ . . m Ralph Fiennes ‎ (Fixing typo raised by BracketBot) •22:38, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1)‎ . . m Ralph Fiennes ‎ (Fixing typo raised by BracketBot) •20:07, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-38)‎ . . m Ralph Fiennes ‎ (rid confusion) •17:52, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-91)‎ . . Saul Zaentz ‎ (→‎Film career: establish links) •16:54, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-87)‎ . . 48th Academy Awards ‎ (reduce confusion) •15:57, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-48)‎ . . m Saul Zaentz ‎ (→‎Early life: eliminate redundancy; too many "Zaentz" in such a small paragraph.) •15:43, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+2,032)‎ . . Talk:The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Unrealised cultural judgments and statements in Articles: new section) •14:57, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-12)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (superfluous and redundant statement of fact;) •06:46, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1)‎ . . m Michael Ondaatje ‎ (→‎Personal life: correct link) •06:44, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-136)‎ . . m Michael Ondaatje ‎ (update links) •06:09, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-4)‎ . . Michael Tolkin ‎ (update links) (current) •06:00, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-198)‎ . . Anthony Minghella ‎ (→‎Career: update links) •05:15, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-18)‎ . . m Anthony Minghella ‎ (→‎Early life: provide reference) •05:06, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+7)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Awards And Honors: links) •04:52, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-28)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Production: link) •04:46, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-21)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Production: correct link) •04:45, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+17)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Aeorplanes: increase references) •04:33, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,033)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Production: enhance with references production notes; update references) •03:44, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+7)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (correct ()) •03:41, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+2)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (correct bracket) •03:31, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-23)‎ . . m Leo Frobenius ‎ (provide sources) •03:22, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+408)‎ . . m Talk:Anthony Minghella ‎ (→‎Education: redundant phrases) (current) •03:15, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,944)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (rid redundant statements of fact; insert table; include new info and upgrade sources) •19:37, 24 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-1)‎ . . m British Academy of Film and Television Arts ‎

SharpQuillPen

•08:53, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+275)‎ . . Talk:The Godfather (novel) ‎ (→‎Link to no mention of godfather or puzo: new section) •08:42, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+4)‎ . . The Godfather ‎ (link) •08:41, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+51)‎ . . The Godfather ‎ (link) •08:03, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-1)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Awards And Honors: fix sortable table) •07:59, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Awards And Honors: fix sortable table) •07:58, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Awards And Honors: fix sortable table) •07:56, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Awards And Honors: fix sortable table) •07:51, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+8)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Awards And Honors: fix sortable table) •07:47, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-8)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Awards And Honors: fix sortable table) •07:43, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+15)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Awards And Honors: fix sortable table) •07:41, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+46)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Awards And Honors: fix sortable table) •07:01, 27 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,499)‎ . . Talk:The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Unrealised cultural judgments and statements in Articles) •06:35, 27 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-88)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Plot: points of clarification) •06:17, 27 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+152)‎ . . Talk:The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎the dashing Hungarian: SharpQuillPen (talk) 09:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)) •06:15, 27 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-327)‎ . . Talk:The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎the dashing Hungarian: I forgot the SharpQuillPen (talk) 09:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)) •06:14, 27 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+2,431)‎ . . Talk:The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎the dashing Hungarian: What the hell is going on?) •05:39, 27 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+6)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Plot: Almasy's use of the cave) •05:32, 27 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+16)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Archaeology: link) •05:23, 27 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+30)‎ . . m László Almásy ‎ (systemize citation) •05:07, 27 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+17)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Aeorplanes: correct reference)

Seems like there has been a variety of other activities with TEP article plot and other Wiki articles. So if you want to characterize something then look at the whole record content instead of merely the statistics.SharpQuillPen (talk) 09:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I would also note that none of these accounts use indentation on their posts, which is something most editors learn how to do early in their career. For a style comparison, let's try these examples: [60] --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Stale. If you want to open an investigation as to the three accounts (see
  WP:SPI is the place to go. BTW, Limey is the oldest of the three.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 22:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [61]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [62]
2. [63]
3. [64]
4. [65]
5. [66]
6. [67]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68] (previously blocked for edit warring )

Comments:
Editor previously blocked on 2 May 2010 for 48 hrs for edit warring.
Vsmith (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Editor first added the parenthetical comments on 16:22 10 Feb. [69] Vsmith (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Page

United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "What alerted *you* to come along and act like anything parenthetical I add is supposedly "inappropriate"? Why is this on *your* radar too? Are you some kind of "boss" here?"
2. 13:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "Since when is the fact that nations and CONTINENTS *aren't* the same thing, and that some other nations have STATES too, which is common knowledge, supposedly "original research"?"
3. Consecutive edits made from 13:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC) to 13:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
   1. 13:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "THERE. Is *that* okay?"
   2. 13:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC) ""
   3. 13:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "THERE. Is *that* okay?"
4. 13:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 594971758 by Vsmith (talk) Reinserting important parenthetical phrases, because parenthetical phrases *are* legal in encyclopedias, AND because that's important for people to know."
5. 12:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 594962458 by TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) But if it's only in the talk page, then--duh--the general public won't typically see it!"
6. 10:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 594858319 by Cadiomals (talk) No, they ARE relevant because it's important for people to know that even though something's common doesn't mean it's correct."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Users summaries are also getting fairly

14:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Same as previous report. This one is more informative though, Vsmith (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: Enigma9035 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [70]
2. [71]
3. [72]
4. [73]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [75] (opening the discussion)

Comments:
This case is a bit more complicated than usual.

21:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• As this notice was being created, Enigma9035 (talk · contribs) finally opted to join the discussion. Antagonistically, but it's a start. No further edits to the article as of this writing, so perhaps the issue has resolved itself. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Since this is in the area of fringe theories, be aware that discretionary sanctions are also in place, 23:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• Page protected - fully protected by Mark Arsten. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Page: Albania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Malbin210 (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. [79] (just take a look at the history page for the edit warring)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Albania#NPOV and article

Comments:

This is a report of edit warring on a Balkans-related article, not necessarily a 3RR violation (btw, are Balkans-related articles still subject to ArbComm discretionary sanctions? I haven't followed that case for a long time just noticed on the article talk page that the article is indeed under ArbComm

00:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

This clearly is a very hypocritical act . I have already contacted an administrator ( JamesBwatson) , presenting the case way before you opening this . I have also given more than enough arguments in the talk page . Please do follow this link , to see the already opened case

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JamesBWatson ( it is imperative that you do , because you will get a more clear picture and the reason for this whole situation )

Furthemore i need to point out that this user opened this case , after the implicated user ( Astarti34 ) asked for help from WilliamThweatt , as demonstrated here > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWilliamThweatt&diff=595062326&oldid=595040989 , in the talk page with the title \Help for Albania article/ , where he was asking from him to open a dispute on his behalf for me ! .

Clearly biased and unnecesary act , when an administrator has been already contacted , and users notified (Malbin210 (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC))

This is a report of edit warring on an article subject to ArbComm sanctions which I noticed while doing vandalism patrol, all users involved have been notified, not only Malbin210. (btw, leaving a rambling message on another editor's talk page is not "opening a case" and nobody else was made aware of it)--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 01:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

You are again lying , my last edit in the article about albania is saying > please do not edit , administrator has been contacted . Let us continue the discussion there , link > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albania&action=history

Furthemore , i did mention the name of the implicated user , and he got a message !

What i need to stress out that , you and astari know very well each other , as demonstrated by the fact that he asked help from you , after i did open a case with a an administrator .

Here is the proof where he asks help from you , to open a case against me , after he got the notice , fearing that he would loose his account because in fact he is the one vandalizing the article about albania ! Link > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWilliamThweatt&diff=595062326&oldid=594256153

Here is another link showing that you have participated mutliple times in war editing , supporting user Astarti34 . > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albania&diff=594910468&oldid=594886667

Here is another link showing you reverting exactly the same thing , support user Astari and his sockpuppet account with the ip 77.49.58.129 >https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albania&diff=595031369&oldid=595021278

It gives very clearly the connection that you , astari , and the sockuppet account with an ip of 77.49.58.129 , have together .

To get a more clear picture please do visit the article about Albania , and the talk page about Albania . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malbin210 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Update > WilliamThweatt , has commented on the opened case , trying to persuade the administrator not to follow the matter any further by claiming ArbComm general sanctions. Clearly demonstrating his biased implication in this matter ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malbin210 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

*sigh* Honestly, can we do something about the

personal attacks and accusations? I simply notified JBW that I had brought the edit warring up for discussion here. FWIW, I really don't have an opinion regarding the content dispute, in general I just plain don't like nationalist motivated edit warring in WP, it's a distraction and highly detrimental to the project which, if I remember correctly, was part of the rationale for the ArbComm decision(s) regarding all Balkans related articles.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs

02:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I am glad then , because we share the same value . I have never made a single edit for nationalistic purposes as demonstrated by my contributions history . I am only editing economical facts which are accurate and properly sourced . Having a degree and masters in economics i tend to focus to those matters . Best regards , John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malbin210 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• There is clearly a serious problem here. As a first step, I have fully protected the article for 36 hours. I am still investigating, to see what other steps are needed. The protection of the article is not an endorsement of the current version.
  talk
  ) 10:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• There have been several unsubstantiated accusations. The most absurd one of those has been the suggestion that an editor who opens an edit warring case on this page and then informs an administrator of the existence of the case is doing so in order to discourage investigation of the case.

I express no opinion on the merits of the two sides in the dispute on gdp, but I urge all parties to try to reach agreement, by discussion in a friendly and cooperative manner, without edit warring, and without taking a

established a version that agreed with what the source says. After that, reverting to a version that did not agree with the cited source was unacceptable.

Malbin210 has been blocked for 48 hours for sockpuppetry. It is certain that he or she edited while not logged in to avoid the appearance of continuiong to edit war, and virtually certain that he or she also created the sockpuppet account Allenbond. I see no evidence to support other allegations of sockpuppetry, but if anyone else thinks that he or she does sse such evidence, then the thing to do is to take it to a

sockpuppet investigation

, not to throw out unsubstantiated accusations in edit summaries and on talk pages.

I shall post warnings to various user talk pages, warning editors about edit warring and about discretionary sanctions. I shall also encourage all concerned to read this message.

talk

) 11:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595125650 by
   talk
   ) that other pages are not using proper sources is not a valid reason , no consensus to do so here on talk"
2. 14:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 594979834 by
   WP:PROVEIT
   that they are professionally acceptable critics in reliably publsihed sources"
3. 13:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 594978300 by
   talk
   ) no they are not reliable sources or professional critics"
4. 13:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "unsourced"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "/* edit warring */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Even after message asking the user to end waring the users continue to revert each others edit . Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected Looks like there is discussion on the talk page which User:TheRedPenOfDoom is involved with so I've protected the page to encourage further discussion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Page: Kingdom of Hungary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 15:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

1. 13:53, 12 February 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Rephrasing to eliminate the redundancy, while including the multi-ethnicity in the first sentence")
2. 13:58, 12 February 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Norden1990 (talk): Multilinugal != multiethnic. (TW)")
3. 14:03, 12 February 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Norden1990 (talk): It very well was multiethnic before 16th century (see e.g. privilegium pro slavis). (TW)")

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the
  3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. John (talk
  ) 18:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Page: Kingdom of Hungary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Norden1990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 14:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

1. 13:47, 12 February 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 595137495 by Wladthemlat (talk) already included")
2. 13:56, 12 February 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 595140389 by Wladthemlat (talk) not true; KoH was not multi-lingual after 1920 and before the 16th century")
3. 14:00, 12 February 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 595140916 by Wladthemlat (talk) back to stable version; so: KoH was not multiethnic after 1920 and before the 16th century")
4. 14:07, 12 February 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "80% are Hungarians... so today's Slovakia is also multiethnic country. First paragraph: short history, second: ethnicity, borders, third: feast, legacy")

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours John (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Page: Vader (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Batiste Igienice (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. [81]
2. [82]
3. [83]
4. [84]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [85]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [86]

Comments:

• Already blocked John (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [87]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [88]
2. [89]
3. [90]
4. [91]
5. [92]
6. [93]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [94]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [95]

Comments:
User Правичност behaves indecently and insults other editors who do not share her/his views as for example here and here. She/he keeps biased, overestimated data about the number of the Serbs worldwide, based on nationalist, unreliable sources. She/he also removed added by me tags, which impugned used by her/him sources here. She/he is edit-warring and does not respect the opinion of other editors and reliable references. Jingiby (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Jinglby came up with a new idea and new sources, pushing new reverts without agreeing with me or any other users on the talk page, this means he was pushing it and i was only reverting it to a previous stable version which was aprooved by me and a number of more users such as Adrian, Zoupan, Klačko, and others... who participated in previous discussions about the total figure of Serbs, coming up to a concensus about it. Total number of Serbs was also discussed in a special section in which Jinglby also hasnt participated (here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Serbs/Total_number)... Jinglby is claiming sources are nationalist and unreliable only because most of them are Serbian soruces, that ofcourse bothers him as same as user Sokac121 who is always supportive to any kind of actions which have to do with degrading figures of Serbs or dissagreeing to "anything Serbian" in the past 4-8 months. Jinglby is trying to change the total number of Serbs in the infobox using and pushing sources such as UCLA (a web-langauge learning page) and Ethnologue (another linguist source) for making estimations on how many people belong to a certain ethnic group or its descent, which is quite unproffesional (for example; nobody cannot denie ~18 million Italian Americans arent Italians by ethnicity or descent just because 90% of them dont speak italian - as only ~800,000 italian Americans speak Italian in the USA (these datas are according to latest U.S. census (ethnic group/race and language declaring datas, as they were available to U.S. people to declare on that census). Using linguist sources and "Online-language learning webpages" for counting/ estimating demographics for some ethnic group is two different worlds. I respect opinions of other editors as long as they are not "anti-Serbian aimed" like they are for user Sokac121 and as long as these opinions arent only POV opinions without any "real" reliable and construct accompying sources to support such opnions. A proof of latest unserious contributions by Jinglby on the article "Serbs" is also adding a tag called "(including Montenegrins)" next to a figure 11 million which was based on UCLA source. Though the "including Montenegrins" tag is his own POV opinion which he included - meaning; "If the number of Serbs on planet is 11 million, then this number probably includes Montenegrins and some others because otherwise it would be too high for him". it is much easier to recall Serbian Ministry for diaspora`s definitions and estimations; There is 8 million Serbs in the Balkans and between 2,5 and 4,5 million living in the diaspora. That is 10-12 million also using all of the soruces that were on the infobox before. Period. (Правичност (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC))

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. John (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Page: Kurds in Syria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Syria_kurdistan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [96]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [101]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (i'm a third party in this edit-warring)

Comments:

Seemingly,

) 19:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: [102]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [103]
2. [104]

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: (no warning yet)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: no attempts have been made by either party (i'm a third party)

Comments:

) 19:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Page: International Criminal Court
User being reported: Arkaad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [105]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [106] 16:11; first revert; 2nd time adding the info
2. [107] 16:26
3. [108] 1941
4. [109] 2018
5. [110] 2049

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [111] 2001

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [112], [113], [114]

See the talk page for why I object to the edit. But the point re this noticeboard is that the user keeps reverting, even after finding the takl page, being reverted by 3 different users, and being warned
L.tak (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: [115]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [116]
2. [117]
3. [118]
4. [119]
5. [120]
6. [121]

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: (no warning yet)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: no attempts have been made by either party (i'm a third party)

Comments:

) 19:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, I had no idea

WP:SCWGS even existed (although I suppose I'm not surprised). My attention was drawn to this page because Soffredo had been justifying edits to other pages, such as Gallery of sovereign state flags [122], on the basis that the ISIS page showed it was a country. Upon examining the page, the ISIS page showed so because an IP added an infobox deep down in the page, and Soffredo subsequently added his own edits to make the position more prominent at the very beginning of the lead. This attempt to justify edits on other pages on the basis he'd made similar edits on this page were made despite the conversation at Talk:List of sovereign states#Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, where discussion in relation to this dispute has occurred. I'll take this as formal notification of SCWGS, in addition to whatever else happens. CMD (talk

) 20:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Page

Candy Crush Saga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "elaboration"
2. 22:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595206663 by Zachverb (talk)"
3. 22:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "Restored content regarding King's intellectual property theft. Please do not edit-war. Take concerns to the talk page."
4. 22:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "Restoring info on King's intellectual property theft, which was removed through user NeilN's bad-fath edit-warring"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on
   TW
   "
2. 22:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   "

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Obvious is obvious */ new section"

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Acroterion (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Page: SodaStream (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dlv999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [123]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [124]
2. [125]

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [126] (warned by another user on Nov.6)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [127] (i'm not a party in the edit-warring, but it seems there are constant discussion on the talk page involving this user).

Comments:

This is a third party report on my behalf (i'm not involved), but i noticed an intended violation of 1RR rule (ARBPIA) on SodaStream, herewith reporting this user. This user claimed on Nov.6 that reverting ips "doesn't count" [128] in regard to 1RR, but later also reverted a registered user. It doesn't seem his last revert was against a banned IP.GreyShark (dibra) 19:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Clear violation of 1RR in furtherance of POV-pushing. Attempting to use the company article to COATRACK selected aspects if the Israel-Palestine disputes. 1RR limit applies even to reverts of lousy but nonvandalous contributions.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• The second revert is of an anonymous IP. From the 1rr warning on the
  Sodastream
  talk page: "Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR"

So only one of the 2 reverts counts as a revert for the purposes of 1RR. One revert is not a violation of 1RR. Unlike Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, every single addition to the article I have made is supported by high quality RS directly related to the article topic. Regarding the content in question I am the one that opened the relevant talk page discussions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been reverting the content, but is yet to make an appearance on talk despite my request. Also I would not regard Greyshark as uninvolved. It is true he has not edited the page, but we have had many content disputes over the years. Dlv999 (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Simplywater is repeatedly adding over 200 words of religious text, either to a quote box or to the infobox. It's not only inappropriate/undue, but the text is misleading out of context.

• 1st edit (and version reverted to) 03:54, 5 February, added to quotebox: "As adherents of Truth, we take the inspired Word of the Bible as our sufficient guide to eternal Life," etc.

• 1st revert: 18:07, 12 February, added to infobox: "As adherents of Truth, we take the inspired Word of the Bible as our sufficient guide to eternal Life," etc.
• 2nd revert: 18:27, 12 February, added to infobox: "As adherents of Truth, we take the inspired Word of the Bible as our sufficient guide to eternal Life," etc.
• 3rd revert: 18:53, 12 February, added to infobox: "As adherents of Truth, we take the inspired Word of the Bible as our sufficient guide to eternal Life," etc.
• 4th revert: 19:38, 12 February, added to infobox: "As adherents of Truth, we take the inspired Word of the Bible as our sufficient guide to eternal Life," etc.

Comment

Simplywater followed the above by removing the first sentence, [129] which she has removed before, then removed most of the article [130] except for the infobox, I assume by mistake.

The context is her extended disruption of the article and talk page since she began editing it on 25 January to add a strong religious POV, especially the talk page, which has now become hard to use. She was blocked for 3RR at the same article on 25 January. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked to prevent further edit warring. -- John Reaves 05:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Page: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Headbomb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [various]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [131]
2. [132]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [133], [134]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Mixing_fonts_within_numbers, [135]

Comments:

I don't want to participate in an edit-war on the MOS, but Headbomb is restoring reverted material rather than leaving it to Talk. At issue is a template that we are arguing about, which is supposed to conform to the MOS but doesn't. Headbomb is now modifying the MOS to conform to the template. He has expanded that section of the MOS, formatting it with the disputed template so that it supports his argument; when I used a version of the template which abided by the consensus version of the MOS, he reverted me, so I reverted both of our recent edits back to the version of the MOS last edited by Jimp and others. He then reverted again, restoring his challenged changes to the MOS, claiming the previous was my "preferred" version. (It was not, though I wouldn't object if he or someone else reverted even further.) This isn't 3RR territory, but it's the MOS – we shouldn't be edit warring at all, and he certainly shouldn't be modifying the MOS to win an argument elsewhere. — kwami (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Options: a.) I block both of you as you should really know better. b.) You go to the talk page. c.)
  WP:RFPP for full protection. Pick one. -- John Reaves
  05:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Huh? I *have* gone to the talk page, and all comments have been supportive of my position. Nonetheless, I haven't been insisting on my way on the MOS: It's Headbomb who is edit-warring by restoring his additions after being reverted. That's the idea, right? BOLD: You make an edit, someone objects and reverts it, you go to the talk page. Headbomb's violated that, and I came here rather than escalate. Explain to me how I've done anything wrong. — kwami (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I've warned both users of the discretionary sanctions active for the page. Kwamikagami BRD is bold edit Y, revert Y, discuss (ie don't edit it again) N. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

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

)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[136]
[137]
[138]

1. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mufaddal_Saifuddin&oldid=595276958

Comments:

•  Comment: - The page is currently semi-protected. The subject is part of a high-profile dispute regarding the succession to Da'i al-Mutlaq, the leader of the Dawoodi Bohra, which has been called "one of the most challenging weeks in the 1,400-year history of the Dawoodi Bohra faith". I have been unable to ascertain any indication that the succession conflict is over, and as this seems to be an ongoing problem I request that the page be fully protected. I am far too involved to protect. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Reverted, again, mistakenly citing WP:BLP. I am at 3RR so I will not revert, but attention from another admin would be most welcome. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
• Page protected To encourage discussion, since the semi protection didn't stop the edit warring. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

Local4554 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC) "Revised my own edit."
2. 18:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "Read the citations before you want them. They are cheap pharmaceutical companies promoting their products."
3. 18:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "Removed content because the research was insufficient."
4. 17:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595162500 by I am One of Many (talk)"
5. 17:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on
   TW
   )"
2. 01:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Resveratral */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Reverting without Reading the Article */ comment"
2. 20:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC) on User talk:Local4554 "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on
   TW
   )"

Comments:

A new user engaged in edit warring, but what is particularly disturbing is that the user has attempted to mislead regarding why they are massively deleting material [139]. The material removed is, in fact, critical of the benefits of resveratrol. I think they are not here to construct an encyclopedia. I am One of Many (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I did not know of the 3 Revert Rule. Please accept my apology! Local4554 (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)On the contrary, each time you were warned to stop you removed the warning from your talk page which is proof you read the warnings and carried on despite a final warning. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I did not want the material on my talk page. That is why I removed it. If I were to spam your talk page, you would not like it either. In his warnings, he was acting as if he were an admin which is why I did not take him serious.

Local4554 (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

And how did you know that he is not a Wikipedia administrator? And either way, you were told of WP:3RR and that you would be blocked from editing this site if you continued WP:Edit warring. To others, while Local4554 is without good Wikipedia skill, I have my doubts that he is entirely new to editing Wikipedia.

talk

) 22:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - It seems this account's only purpose is promotion of resveratrol. Also, the previous comment is nonsensical. You clearly knew of 3RR, since you couldn't have possibly removed the final warning that told you about it without seeing it in the process. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - The account is not for the sole purpose of resveratrol. The first edit was attacked by users who wish they were admins. I am One of Many did not mention the 3RR until it was reported. The Editor 04:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Local4554 (talk • contribs)

(Non-administrator comment)this final warning is pretty clear. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - (Non-administrator comment)Acting like an administrator This is a good example of where user:I am One of Many was trying to pretend to be an administrator. He did not mention the 3RR. The Editor 04:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• User blocked. -- John Reaves 05:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Page

Turkish Land Forces (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 1st revert, IP used (185.35.164.30)
2. 19:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595344225 dont agree with edits you made"
3. 19:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595343187 undoing"
4. 19:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595317502 by Antiochus the Great (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC) "notify"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on users talk page

1. 19:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC) "/* 13 February 2014 */ hello"

Comments:

The IP has broke the 3RR and continued to revert twice after I warned him on his talk page. I posted a friendly message on his talk page trying to sort things out - the IP did not respond. All of the IPs reverts have resulted in the removal of sourced content that the IP "disagrees with" (i.e

) 20:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected - semi protected for one month. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Page 1:

)
User being reported: Здраво свијете! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to (Page 1): diff preferred, link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff
5. diff

Page 2: Atifete Jahjaga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Здраво свијете! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to (Page 1): diff preferred, link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff
5. diff
6. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

This is a purpose built spam/ edit war account. Regards IJA (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes; Здраво свијете! is at 5RR. Newly-created account dedicated to revert-stalking on topics related to Kosovo; we know what that means... bobrayner (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I deny the allegations. It seems to me that two editors (IJA and Bobrayner) have combined to unofficially play at 'six reverts a day'. I've edited a handful of articles but only those listed have been reverted by these two and what's more, neither have denied my content or the reasoning behind my summaries, and the only provision for the reverting has been that I am an alleged 'sock'. Now having said that these two editors have not reverted every contribution by me, one look at their history will reveal that they are jointly responsible for the shaping of these Kosovo related articles to appear as they do so it is an unequivocal fact that they are merely pushing POVs and hiding behind a 'reverting the sock' façade. For my part, since my alleged 'sock' status has been the only reasoning behind the reverts, and even more to the point that it is totally untrue, I believe I should not have been reverted. I mean, if I am a 'sock' then someone else is the master. No good crying wolf in this case, the two antagonists need to report me and who they think the master is. It then needs a check, and only if confirmed and I am blocked are they within their rights to remove my contributions. Otherwise, I can be here for ever and they can revert every edit they don't like on the 'I think it's a sock' motive. So until either of them find a good reason to revert me, I consider myself as still being on 'edit number 1' in the chain. --Здраво свијете! (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

You're not the first user to be in an edit war with more than one user. You violated the

WP:3RR despite being warned, you have no defence. IJA (talk

) 22:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Warned by whom? I haven't violated anything, the reverts against me were based on a false allegation therefore technically did not happen. Furthermore, you are party to any 'editwar' and only because you are hell bent on pushing pro-Albanian viewpoints across the site, your 'sock' summary is a cover-up. --Здраво свијете! (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Obvious sockpuppet. Meanwhile, on another article, Здраво свијете! has reached 4 reverts in 14 hours. [140] [141] [142] [143]. It's a very obscure article, and not particularly controversial, but it's something I had edited earlier; obvious revert-stalking. bobrayner (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Obvious is it? A sock of whom? Apart from some unlogged edits to which I would admit, I'm not abusing this account as a multiple. --Здраво свијете! (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

And if you don't mind me saying, you have a good understanding of Wikipedia policy for someone who has had a wikipedia account less than 24 hrs. And as to me and bobrayner being "responsible for the shaping of these Kosovo related articles"; this is a conclusion you've come to within 24 hrs of having an account/ being on Wikipedia? Why bother denying you're a sock? IJA (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I have edited unlogged and will continue to do so where I see fit. Besides, the rules are on display to be read, they are not hidden in some secret location, and I still don't know them all. You are pushing pro-Albanian and anti-Serb viewpoints wherever you can and your history testifies to this. You can choose one of your contributions blindfolded to ascertain that much. And why bother denying I am a sock. Well I don't know quite how else to put this but, because I am not. I don't personally understand how anyone can arrive at such a conclusion without a clue as to who the so-called chief account holder is. That said, I wouldn't at all be surprised if theIJA & Bobrayner accounts were being used by the same person. The viewpoints are identical, where one goes, the other follows. --Здраво свијете! (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

If we're the same user, get us checked... and inevitably fail. Here is the warning that was given to you and after this you still reverted. The IJA (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Здраво свијете! Blocked – for a period of 2 days and warned regarding discretionary sanctions. Bobrayner and IJA are strongly warned for tag-team edit warring. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

• 216.126.81.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 99.229.246.140 (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 14:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC) to 14:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
   1. 14:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 14:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 14:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC) "Must remain neutral stance, no consensus achieved on pseudoscience, an "alleged" practicioner is a fraud, not a psychic by definition"
3. Consecutive edits on February 11
   1. 08:52, February 11, 2014‎ (UTC) ""
   2. 08:52, February 11, 2014 (UTC) ""
4. Edits by User:99.229.246.140
   1. February 2, edit summary: "Wikipedia is supposed to maintain a neutral stance when it comes to things like this, so my edit stands. Reread the guidelines."
   2. February 2, edit summary: ""
   3. February 2, edit summary: "Adding facts"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:38, February 2, 2014‎ (UTC) "/* "Considered pseudoscience" */ New section"
2. 15:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "/* "Considered pseudoscience" */ Reply"
3. Discussion of page protection or blocks followed

Comments:

User is hopping ips every couple days to remove sourced information from the article critical of the topic. He refuses to participate on the talk page. I've considered page protection, but another ip has contributed positively recently. I'd prefer to try a short block on this ip, followed by page protection later (if necessary).   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected Semi protected for a month it's continuing so page protection is going to be the only way to solve it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Page

Masquerade (1988 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 12:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 13:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC) "General note: Editing tests on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Requested to provide sources for outlandish claim re: muppets.

13:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 3 days Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 15:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595456110 by
   talk
   ) Revision to eliminate spurious criticism not relevant to the facts of the matter"
3. 15:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 15:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC) "this section is to describe the facts of shiatsu. matters of evidence should be in a different section."
5. Consecutive edits made from 15:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC) to 15:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
   1. 15:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC) "added reference to the BMC article"
   2. 15:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Your edits at Shiatsu */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

As I have mentioned. I have corrected matters of fact: Tamai Tempaku invented shiatsu not Namikoshi. Shiatsu has been develped by two Japanese practitioners, Namikoshi and Masunaga. I explain the diffferences between them, the books they have written. ALl of this is germane to the subject. Ernsts remarks are opinion and do not have a place in the history of shiatsu. His book quoted in reference is only a review of therapies and contains no original research of his own to support his assertions. A truthful perspective on its current place in therapeutic care would be the following: Further studies have been done since 2011 and shiatsu is gaining ground in hospitals around europe, even though formal evidence for its efficacy is yet to be established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankank (talk • contribs) 16:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 days Edit warring is edit warring whether you think you're right or not. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

A.Musketeer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

diffs of user's changes

1) changes made by user to what was previously my current page

diffs of edit war

1) 19:55, 14 February 2014
2) 21:06, 14 February 2014
3) 21:36, 14 February 2014

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1) diff between creation of thread in talk to time of reporting

Comments:

The page in question is an emotive subject of illegal killings of pows against the geneva conventions. I have stated my reasons for my changes while editing the article and provided references, while attempting to maintain a NPOV. The page is regularly vandalised by IP user(s) and i believe the user i am reporting is a sock puppet of an ip user from the nature of his edits on this and other pages he has contributed to which aim to introduce a pro bangladesh bias. The user in question does not provide any references to any of his edits and claims he is editing from his personal knowledge when asked why on his talk page. he provides little or flimsy reasons for his change. i have invited him to resolve this issue on the talk page by highlighting the reasons for my changes in the hope that he would subjectively argue the merits of his changes and we would be able to reach consensus to resolve this issue. Despite this he does not seem interested in presenting any other version of the events but his own personal one and engaging in edit warring by reverting my edits to resolve this issue. i have crossed the 3RR inadvertently, but only so after the reported user did not seem interested in providing reasons or sources for his edits. I hope a review of the article by an administrator will help reach an acceptable compromise and resolve this edit warring. Pvpoodle (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Reply - I have provided many sources and reasons in the talk page of that article. This user is just reverting me to add his pro-India biased and repeated statements in the article and unnecessarily accusing me of being sock puppet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.Musketeer (talk • contribs) 22:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Both users are on 4RR. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
• Both editors blocked – for a period of 1 day Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Page

Sukhoi Superjet 100 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15 February 2014 (UTC) rv edit by sock
2. 06:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595551680 by Jim1138 (talk) Do not edit war no consensus version"
3. 06:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595551482 by Dr.K. (talk) Rv sock Please see Dr.K. sock of Jkadavoor"
4. 06:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595550934 by Jim1138 (talk)vandalize a page consider using the article's talk page to mak consensus version"
5. 05:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595548261 by Dr.K. (talk) Rv sock of Jkadavoor"
6. 05:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595546939 by Dr.K. (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"
2. 05:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC) "IP sock Fornslsateve"
3. 05:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC) "Notifying about suspicion of sockpuppeteering. (
   TW
   )"
4. 06:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit-warring sock of Fornslsateve (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fornslsateve Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

JJkadavoor Dr.K. Jim1138 Edit-warring on Sukhoi Superjet 100 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) about a picture Not using the article's talk page to mak consensus version — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.109.95.35 (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Dr.K. Jim1138 Edit-warring Violating the three-revert rule on Sukhoi Superjet 100 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.109.95.35 (talk) 06:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 days and looking into it an SPI. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you Callanecc. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Page

Second Amendments (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC) "Truth lives"
2. 16:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 16:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 16:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC) ""
5. 16:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• There's at least four more diffs. --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 16:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
• talk
  ) 16:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Page

Second Amendments (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on
   TW
   )"
2. 16:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC) "This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning. (
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Keeps removing content and adding unsoucred content (10 or more times at this point) when seven users have reverted him multiple times. --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 16:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I have submitted another report with diffs below. —Josh3580_talk/hist 16:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Is trying to change article subject from a band to the constitution. 212.139.251.78 (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You are looking for the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution not the Second AmendmentS (notice how I capitalized the "s" so you know its two different things). AcidSnow (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

No, the page listed above is right (Second Amendments). The user is now blocked anyway so this can be closed. --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 16:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• talk
  ) 16:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: [144]

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Revision as of 16:55, 12 February 2014‎ (removed after being told it is spoken in Djibouti and that it is an alternative name)
2. Revision as of 02:03, 14 February 2014‎ (he removed it again after being told by me that it is)
3. Revision as of 12:37, 14 February 2014‎ (telling me to go to the talk page even after being shown 3 more refs)
4. Revision as of 14:41, 14 February 2014 (again even after being shown 4 different refs that say the same thing)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [145]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [146]

Comments:
The user has been edit warring on

, as you can see from just that he did not read the Ethnologue reference page. If he had he would have known that it is another name. He would also delete that it is spoken in Djibouti even though the original refs also says that it is. He would still go on to restore his edit even after being shown that it is spoken it is spoken in Djibouti and that "Djibouti Arabic" is also an alternative/also known as name. He would then tell me to go to the talk page after I and another user had shown him that it is no mistake and that it is true with three more references saying the same thing.

In his most recent edit he said, "It is an accent not a language and a source that cite wikiepdia is not a reliable source. see the talk page before undo my work", although only one site even mentions Wikipedia he would also remove the rest of them! The one that does mention Wikipedia does not says it is a primer source, rather you could find the same information there too. He also told me to see the talkpage when I have..... This is not his first time that he has edit warred (see post above). He was also blocked just a few days ago for the same reason. This user also has a serous continues issues of inappropriate behavior (see the AN report about him),

) 15:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Again with these users. I did not break the 3 reverts rule you did and your friend Midday express did that. Do not revert an edit just because you found some website that is actually citing Wikipedia. see

Talk:Ta'izzi-Adeni Arabic for the discussion. I know this is not about right or wrong but if you really want to stick to that link of yours why didn't you copy the part that says it's also spoken in Libya and the united kingdom apparently? This is a behavioral problem that i previously discussed with the this user and his other friend midday express. They are like on a crusade to establish some ethnic and linguistic links between Yemen and the horn of Africa. I know this is not about being right or wrong but i removed very poorly sourced information from an article and simply asked the user for a more reliable source than websites that actually cite wikipedia!--يوسف حسين (talk

) 15:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you please read what I wrote so your not repeating the same thing over and over again (not surprising that you did not read)? Although you claim more than one source "cites" Wikipedia only one of the sites I provided even mentions Wikipedia. In fact it does not even say that it was a primer source, rather the same info can be found there too. But, you decided to delete all the others and the sourced info too saying they are not reliable. As for Libya and the UK, they are quite different since there is no figure given for either of them; making Djibouti quite different from them (this was already explained by Middayexpress).

As for you not breaking 3RR, you did since you reverted 4 four times while claimed that Ethnologue is not reliable (not surprising that you would continue to lie). Since you claim to be removing "very poorly sourced information", it does not work in your favor as an excuse to justify your continuous reverts as the page you warred at is not about a living person but a linguistic page. Neither me or Middayexpress broke 3RR and nor do we have a "behavioral problem" (again not new that you would make things up). As for "some ethnic and linguistic links between Yemen and the horn of Africa", I am "hope" you are joking with that one (or maybe you oddly don't believe this?). AcidSnow (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• talk
  ) 16:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

JamesBWatson, there's another edit war you might want to see and his serious inappropriate behavior that has been listed at the AN report about him. This way you can gather all the info about this user before you make any verdict. AcidSnow (talk

) 17:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Page: Template:Serbia topics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Subtropical-man (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. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff
5. diff
6. diff

Diff of edit warring link

After listing several stubs I created here at AfD, this user has started to remove all the LGBT links from the relevant country templates while this AfD is still ongoing. This is not just limited to the articles I started (and then added to the templates), but the previous existing "LGBT rights in x..." too. So for example, the edits on the Azerbaijan template has both the LGBT history and rights topics removed. Look at Subtropical-man's recent edits across multiple other templates of this nature. I've tried to communicate with him on their talkpage, but they just go back to removing the LGBT topics from the template. Surely the status quo of having the links in the template should remain until the AfD is complete? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, currently being discussed about removing series of "articles" of "LGBT history in..." by User:Lugnuts (useless pseudo-stubs with only one sentence which duplicates the information from the main article). But, this case does not apply to AfD, this is independent case. Whether articles will be removed or not, this does not change the fact. I thoroughly explained in the description of changes: "Main article: Human rights with LGBT situation. LGBT it's a minor issue for the state, can not be used in the main template of state", "Template state topics concerns important issue for the state, and does not include all relate articles - to all relate articles are the categories". And also I explained exactly here. LGBT situation, pedophilia situation, situation of capital punishment and other has too little importance for the main template of state. To these articles, categories (of state) are sufficient. What is the response from the user Lugnuts? Blind reverts. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 17:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Why are you removing the LGBT rights links too? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

Surely, it's more than three reverts?

^{Imperatrix Mundi}

17:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

This is for edit-warring, not 3RR and it's across multiple templates. Shall I provide more links? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's the same pattern on another template:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff

Thanks Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC) Not surprising since he informed you of his intentions two days ago

17:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• WP:3RR. However, the reverts at many, many templates were clearly agenda-driven and disruptive. Lugnuts could have handled it better, but the burden was on Subtropical-man to justify the removal of the links from so many templates, not through edit summaries but through discussion.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 17:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Page

History of Malaysia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595639900 by Velella (talk) Malaysia is Arab Muslims country"
2. 21:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595637754 by Chipmunkdavis (talk) Malaysia is Arab Muslims country"
3. 21:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595637754 by Chipmunkdavis (talk)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 21:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC) to 21:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
   1. 21:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 21:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC) ""
   3. 21:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC) ""
   4. 21:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 20:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC) to 21:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
   1. 20:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 20:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC) ""
   3. 21:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595635849 by Dnsesutinre (talk)"
   4. 21:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Dnsesutinre (talk) to last version by Rmosler2100"
2. 21:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Removing speedy deletion tags. (
   TW
   )"
3. 21:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on
   TW
   )"
4. 21:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[147]. There is no communicating with the user, they revert everything, and I do not want to violate the rules myself by reverting them again.

Comments:

User was also reported for vandalism, and has been blocked. Rmosler | ● 21:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 05:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595683939 by
   talk
   ) Flyer22 reverted my edits for reasons unknown. Please post on the talk page about why you are doing this."
3. 06:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595694527 by NeilN (talk) still no consensus here."
4. 06:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595695910 by NeilN (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   "

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 06:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Assigned at birth */"
2. 06:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Assigned at birth */"

Comments:

I have not violated the three reversion rule; I made one edit and three reversions. The three revert rule describes a reversion as undoing another's work, and prohibits doing it more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. I have not undone user neiln's work more than three times. Furthermore, I have participated extensively on the talk page of said article trying to build a consensus, however Neiln is not interested in consensus. If a consensus can be reached I will gladly accept a compromise outcome or if he would make a better effort to explain to me why I am wrong I will be happy to undo my own editing. As it is, Neiln is the one in violation of Wikipedia policy, not me. And he is the one who should be temporarily banned, if anyone. Thank you. 24.220.174.68 (talk) 07:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

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

)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595724655 by Finealt (talk) Nickelodeon and Nick Jr are different channels - hard to see the value in completely eliminating one article in favour of the other"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Nick Jr. UK and Ireland */ new section"
2. 19:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Nick Jr. UK and Ireland */"
3. 19:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Nick Jr. UK and Ireland */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Maybe you can fully protect the page. Finealt (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Finealt's diffs of my supposed edit warring is a discussion on my own talk page! You'll observe that on the article itself, I made exactly ONE reversion to Finealt's highly misjudged edits, and that other reversions were made by other editors. Note also that Finealt has made NO attempts to resolve the issue on the article talk page. This is a pattern of behaviour across hundreds of articles, rising by the day. Finealt is materially wrong in his central belief that international TV channels are all identical in content to their US parents. Finealt has threatened, bullied and repeatedly edit-warred against anyone who attempts to moderate his extremely

Bonusballs (talk

) 19:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Per

WP:BOOMERANG, Finealt has been the warring editor and has already run afoul of a dozen other editors. While he seems to want to indicate he's retiring, he left parting shots at User talk:Bonusballs and User talk:Murry1975 I would drop this foolish request of Finealt and perhaps give him/her an imposed break to cool off. Chris Troutman (talk

) 19:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Bonusballs, while Finealt is edit-warring across multiple articles. Huon (talk
  ) 19:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Page: Buffy the Vampire Slayer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Andrzejbanas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [149]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:

The user logged out to avoid 3RR, but the edit summary language and the fact that it's a Canadian IP gives it away. Nymf (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry about logging out. I just switched computers. i'm attempting to resolve the situation on the talk page. In the meantime, when you add things without discussing it on the talk page, it's vandalism, so I reverted it. Please discuss it on the talk page before moving this further. You can see by my edit history I've done this several times without any issues. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: That first edit listed as a revert does not count as a revert in the sense of WP:3RR; that edit is the start of Andrzejbanas challenging two fields. What followed are the true reverts.

talk

) 23:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Page: Jewish Internet Defense Force (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 66.55.134.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [156]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [157]
2. [158]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [159]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [160]

Comments:
This article is under 1RR for historical reasons. There's a long history of COI, SPAs, sockpuppets, and drama. Not much has happened there in recent years, but recently an anon appeared, explicitly trying to make the article more favorable to the organization. I reverted once, and then came here. I'd prefer someone else deal with this. John Nagle (talk) 06:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one year. The last protection was for six months. The IP is blocked 3 months per {{webhostblock}}, since choopa.com is a web hosting farm. EdJohnston (talk) 03:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595700892 by Grayfell (talk)"
2. 05:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595235000 by Vanamonde93 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP was blocked for 24 hours for edit warring on the 13th. Has resumed slow edit war, no contributions to any talk pages. Grayfell (talk) 04:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Page: Jehovah's Witnesses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jeffro77 (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. [161]
2. [162]
3. [163]
4. [164]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [165]

Comments:

The case is discussed thoroughly on the articles talk page, and Jeffro77 are asked several time for adding sources for the claim he insists of keeping. Jeffro77's behaves reminds about ownership to JW-related artiicles. Anyway, it looks like a 3RR-violation to me. Grrahnbahr (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I haven't formally warned the user, but this edit [166] proves that Jeffro77 is well aware about the 3RR. Grrahnbahr (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC) -->

Comment:Grrahnbahr should probably concentrate more on the "discuss" part of

BRD at the moment. The wording he has removed has been present since April 2010 and has clearly enjoyed a consensus all that time. Jeffro has given a reasoned and reasonable justification for the need to retain that wording here. Grrahnbarr is one of two editors tinkering with the wording in what has become a heated and often quite tedious discussion. If Grrahnbarr is adamant his version is correct, and thus should be changed, he needs to seek wider support, rather than edit-warring himself. BlackCab (talk

) 22:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The user who has been edit warring is User:Gabby Merger. It's unclear why Grrahnbahr has elected to attack me instead. The wording of the article has been stable for quite some time until Gabby Merger raised an objection that has been quite thoroughly dealt with at article Talk. Grrahnbahr is among the editors who has disagreed with the edit made by Gabby Merger, and was the initial editor to revert Gabby Merger's edit to the version of the article that I also restored. Two of my 'reverts' indicated above are in fact to the same version of the article Grrahnbarr restored after he also reverted Gabby Merger's edits. It was in fact Grahhnbahr who first reverted the edit by Gabby Merger that I subsequently reverted to the stable version of the article, and Gabby Merger has edited the same portion of text without consensus eight times[167][168][169][170][171][172][173][174] over the last few days. Gabby Merger has further indicated at article Talk that she intends to continue with the same behaviour[175][176][177][178][179]; she also attempted to censor her 'threats' to keep reverting[180].--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to be very very clear, not only was the edit I restored the stable version of the sentence for many months prior to Gabby Merger's initial change that Grrahnbahr reverted, but the sentence I restored, to which Grrahnbahr is now 'objecting', is the exact same sentence that Grrahnbahr restored when he objected to Gabby Merger's edit[181].--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's going on, and I have no real interest all that much anymore in any of this. But to set the record straight regarding something Jeffro77 said. I never said I would revert all the time willy nilly. I never violate 3RR. And I never violate consensus. I made it clear that I would never "revert" or do anything if there was real consensus on Talk, one way or the other, even if I disagreed. I said I always respect consensus, per WP policy. And I never violate 3RR. That can be clearly seen, in the history. And if I was "edit-warring", then so were BlackCab and Jeffro77. It generally takes at least two to "edit-war". What's ironic is that I was not even gonna pursue this matter anymore, as I grew tired of the ownership attitudes (albeit overall decent editing over the years) by both Jeffro77 and BlackCab, over this article. (Also, it's funny how Jeffro77 calls my changing my mind about something, and editing my own comments, as "censoring my threats". By feeling the need to put in a link of my altered comment, where I may have re-thought a bit, and removed or edited my own comment. Assuming good faith, he is, as usual. The point is I never violate 3RR, and I never violate consensus. And I made that clear to him. BlackCab and Jeffro77 do not constitute everybody. And the only thing I was "threatening" was not countenancing obvious bullying, controlling, or ownership behavior, and disrespect of valid good-faith modifications, really not so much because of true valid "redundancy" reasons, but really for "I don't like" reasons, personal preferences towards edits, against WP policy and recommendation. That was it. But I always respect Talk consensus, regardless of my own opinions. Jeffro77, of course, didn't bother to mention those things here on his comments.) As I said, I was not even gonna pursue this anymore anyway. I was not expecting Grrahnbahr to do this with Jeffro77, though. I don't know if it was all that necessary. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Gabby Merger claims she is careful to 'never breach the 3RR', though she specifically stated several times in her comments at article Talk that she would wait until 24 hours were up, and then revert (and despite that claim, she made three such reverts on 8 February—not counting her initial edit, and five on 12 February). The policy states, Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation. Gabby Merger also seems to have coined her own definition of 'consensus', by which she never breaches it, because she decides for herself what determines a 'real' consensus. Three editors reverted her changes, including Grrahnbahr. When Grrahnbahr initially reverted Gabby Merger's edit, Grrahnbahr restored the exact long-stable version of the article that I restored, for which Grrahnbahr is now accusing me of edit warring and unsourced material. Grrahnbahr has admitted at my User Talk page that his real gripe with me is not about this instance of Gabby Merger starting an edit-war, but is really about Grrahnbahr's unrelated dislike of what he thinks I think of Jehovah's Witnesses.[182] I have responded there to his claims.[183]--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to address the thing Jeffro77 said about "gaming the system". His thing about waiting until just outside the 24 hours etc. The point though is there was NO consensus reached yet. And either the 24 hour thing means something or it doesn’t. Otherwise why even have a 3RR 24-hour rule in the first place, if anything will be considered a “violation” anyway? Words have to mean something, and so does the policy. Bullying and ownership attitudes are clearly against WP policy. But as far as “gaming”? WP policy also considers MEAT-PUPPETING to be a way of "gaming the system" too. It's been obvious that Jeffro77 and BlackCab have been doing that over the years, with reverts, tag-team style, to avoid breaking 3RR individually, etc. Though I acknowledge their good work overall on the article. That doesn't mean that they have been always perfect in their attitudes or actions though. I'm sorry, I don't like to throw negative terms around so easily, but it can be argued that what they've done (at times) can be considered at least a form of "meat-puppetting". So as to slyly get out of violating 3RR with 4RR or 5RR in less than 24 hours. That kind of thing is kinda frowned upon, by Wikipedia policy. The problem is that Jeffro77 and BlackCab tend to see things in others that they never see in themselves...as far as remarks or bluntness. BlackCab can be crass and blunt, but will never see it in himself, but will see it in others, when someone says something like "hang-ups" or "full of themselves". Yet BlackCab can say words like "your wind-baggery", which I've seen him/her say and do to others a number of times, in disputes and talks etc. And assume BAD faith so often in others, many times. And they don't see themselves as doing anything wrong, rude, or disrespectful or at least questionable. People rarely see their own flaws or questionable actions...usually. But will quickly see it in others. (real or imagined). Human nature.

As far as his contention that I make up my own definition of "consensus"? No, I just happen to know that real "consensus" on Wikipedia is not just two editors who have been known (it's well-documented in the history for years now) to have control issues of said article. Even if they were not known for "ownership" behavior (they'll deny that of course), even if it was just two other editors, just any two editors, that alone hardly constitutes "consensus", especially when there are two other editors (myself and Grrahnbahr) who have not totally agreed with Jeffro77 or BlackCab. Yes, as Jeffro77 loves to constantly point out and remind on here, it was Grrahnbahr who initially reverted my original edit. But later he seemed to change his mind, at least a bit, and seemed to come around to my point of view, to some extent..in a way. So? That happens sometimes. So it became a situation where it was basically "two against two". In a way. Last time I checked, A) two editors do not constitute solid "consensus" necessarily on Wikipedia, in general. And B) two editors versus two editors is not "consensus" at all, in any sense. So when Jeffro77 says “three editors reverted my edits” in overall context that’s extremely mis-leading. Grrahnbahr reverted me ONLY ONCE...and then we talked, and he conceded the point to some extent. The ones who have been “edit-warring” are BlackCab and Jeffro77 with constant reverts, of good-faith sourced elaborations, in tag-team meat-puppet get-out-of-violating 3RR gaming style, mainly really because of “I don’t like” reasons. And I objected to that and stated it. That was basically it. But if you see the thing, I did try to reach a bit of a compromise. Instead of using the phrase "biblical Christianity" to Grrahnbahr's "true Christianity" (that was reverted by BlackCab) to then my "incompatible with the Bible" to "incompatible with Scriptural teachings". None of that was welcomed or respected by Jeffro77 and BlackCab. Then this thing between Grrahnbahr and Jeffro77 now. That's basically it. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Gabby Merger's claim of 'meat puppetting' is false (and the claim has been previously raised and summarily dismissed). I have never met BlackCab and do not know him at all other than through interaction on Wikipedia. It's also amusing that Gabby Merger makes claims about me that are somehow 'demonstrated' by BlackCab's alleged actions. It's also amusing that Gabby Merger acknowledges that my work on Wikipedia is "good work overall", but is suddenly 'bad' when it is not consistent with what Gabby Merger wants (the same attitude demonstrated by Grrahnbahr).

Grrahnbahr, BlackCab and I all disagreed with Gabby Merger's edit, and Grrahnbahr was the first to revert her edit (to the same version of the article that I restored, about which Grrahnbahr is now complaining), so Gabby Merger's cliam is obviously false. The reasons why Gabby Merger's edit was not accepted was not "I don't like it", and was very clearly articulated at the article's Talk page.

Grrahnbahr has his own agenda that has absolutely nothing to do with the current argument at all, as demonstrated by the fact that Grrahnbahr restored exactly the same version of the article that I did. He has stated this at my User Talk page, and has previously attempted to make claims about me that are entirely unrelated to my work on Wikipedia.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

In the frivolous ANI Grrahnbahr raised against me in August 2013,[184] he claimed that I "have a history of using ANI to get rid of users not sharing his view of Jehovah's Witnesses and similar topics".[185]; as an 'example', he cited an ANI that wasn't even raised by me (it was actually raised by User:Danjel). Now, only a few months later, Grrahnbahr is again attempting to tangentially use ANI about an ostensibly trivial matter as a 'platform' to make a broader irrelevant attack on me.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that in order to "meat-puppet", the editors had to ever physically meet in person. That's not what the policy states. It can't be denied though (and why was that charge raised in the past by a number of other editors, in the first place, if there was no fire at all to the smoke?, at least in some sense?), that BlackCab tends to back up whatever Jeffro77 says or does, as far as comments, beliefs, opinions, positions, contentions, the vast majority of the times, and definitely as far as reverts and edits. And vice versa. And it's plainly and painfully obvious that in the matter of the reverts of edits that they don't like or don't agree with, and the matter of "3RR", they DO get around that, in tag-team fashion, by reverting maybe 2 or 3 times individually, but together maybe 4 or 5 times in less than 24 hours...and can be at least considered (a lot of this is a matter of interpretation anyway, in a lot of ways, correct) as "meat-puppetting" somewhat. The only reason I even brought up that word "meat-puppet" is because of the charge of trying to violate WP policy by somehow "gaming the system" by waiting just over the 24 hours to revert again. Which, by the way, I never actually even did really. I was making the point that the "bright line" that WP itself mentions, and refers to it as, I never violate. Interpretations of vague things are just that though. Also, again, it takes two to tango and at least two to "edit-war", etc. Again, as to Jeffro's constant "well Grrahnbahr reverted Gabby Merger first" remarks, and somehow trying to make it like it was "consensus of 3 against 1", he forgets or doesn't acknowledge or admit that Grrahnbahr (at least to some extent) changed his mind and his view a little, closer to my view, in that Grrahnbahr wanted to put "true Christianity" instead, and actually did, but was reverted by BlackCab who didn't want it.

Meaning, in reality, after Grrahnbahr modified or altered his view to some degree quickly after I dialogued with him, it's only really TWO editors (Jeffro77 and BlackCab) who have been arguing about this matter, against both me and Grrahnbahr (mostly me though). Grrahnbahr is obviously not really in Jeffro77's camp on this. Otherwise why would Grrahnbahr want to even report Jeffro77 and bring this matter here in the first place? So again, sorry, Jeffro77 misleads readers when he tries to give the impression that, even eventually later on at least, it's three editors against my view, instead of just only two...and really being a 2 vs 2 thing, overall. Grrahnbahr changed his mind to some extent...is the point. BlackCab and Jeffro77 never did. And yes, the issue with Grrahnbahr now with Jeffro77 is slightly different (though closely related obviously...so Jeffro77 saying "it has absolutely nothing to do" is a bit of an over-statement...it does have to do with it obviously...to some degree), but it's not like Grrahnbahr didn't see or concede my point, to some degree. He did. Good day. Gabby Merger (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Editors who 'want' to see a 'pattern' that BlackCab and I supposedly agree on 'everything' simply ignore the instances where we disagree. That perception arises where pro-JW editors do not like articles to present information that is neutral rather than slanted in favour of the religion. The concept is not particularly novel or surprising. In this case, I did agree with both Grrahnbahr and BlackCab that your edit was redundant. I also agreed with BlackCab that Grrahnbahr's later edit was not only redundant based on the facts already presented at the article's Talk page, but that it was also misleading. However, I would have held my position irrespective of what BlackCab might have said on the matter. And in this case, the edit in question isn't even about anything remotely 'negative' about JWs at all, but a plain fact of their belief that they avoid celebrations and customs that they say have pagan origins that are incompatible with Christianity.

Gabby Merger is quite correct though that she did not wait 24 hours before reverting, because she changed the text five times in the one day. Grrahnbahr's view did not come closer to Gabby Merger's view, though it did suddenly and somewhat inexplicably change from the long-stable version of the article. However, his new 'preferred' version is inaccurate because it falsely claims that JWs reject all customs with 'pagan origins', which is something their own publications directly state to be not the case (e.g. Awake!, 8 January, 2000, page 27).

Gabby Merger asks why Grrahnbahr would report me if he were not in agreement with Gabby Merger. I have already answered that in my comments above. Grrahnbahr raised a frivolous ANI about me in August last year in which he resorted to flat out lying about me, so his broader contempt is evident and it is unsurprising that he is now using another 'storm in a teacup' to attack me. But aside from that Grrahnbahr has adopted a third (incorrect) view about the statement in question, rather than being in agreement with Gabby Merger.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

More broadly, Grrahnbahr contends that because I disagree with JW beliefs that I should not be editing those articles, and because I have researched those beliefs, that I should not edit articles about the subject. That is why he has reported me in this instance. In all likelihood, Grrahnbahr does not really believe that my edit in this instance is particularly controversial at all, as it's a fairly plain statement about JW belief supported by JW publications and has been the stable version of the article for many months. He is merely leaping on any opportunity to continue his attack from last year.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't doubt that editor Grrahnbahr has some bias against you, and that is what may be driving some of this, from him, and I doubt he's totally perfect himself, but I also doubt that his bias towards you is totally unfounded, given the history. I don't think that just because you disagree with JWs' beliefs and teachings (which you admitted, and which is plainly obvious, especially when for some reason you make weak silly old irrelevant non-sequitur comparisons of formal chosen ornament and evergreen tree-idolizing Christmas pagan roots and customs, mixed with the Bible or with Christ, that even many of those who observe it ADMIT is basically pagan in origins, but just don't care and celebrate it anyway, with Gregorian calendar date systems that are used by everyone in regions, in daily life and function, where one has a real choice or option otherwise, as somehow JWs picking and choosing which things with pagan origins to observe, though the sentence in question was regarding really pagan celebrations), that simply because you don't like JWs or their beliefs or their doctrines (maybe you're an apostate or something, just like BlackCab, who knows...) that you're precluded from ever contributing or editing or watching over a JW article. The edits themselves should be the factor. But that doesn't mean that it's ok to go overboard and time after time, literally year after year, to diss edits or mods from other editors, show ownership behavior, and bullying and strong-arm tactics, with of course the front excuses and rationales of things like "redundant" or "makes no sense" and "not necessary" or whatever. When this thing is a WIKI. Good-faith and accurate things should NEVER be removed, even if you're not too keen on the wording or edit. Period. The fact is that JWs use the term "Bible Christianity" etc, whether you like the wording, find it "awkward" or not. And it's just a descriptive modification or elaboration, that could have stayed, as it's not like it would have ruined the whole article or the whole paragraph. Hence the "no own" matter.

Also, as far as what you keep saying about "changed five times", I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about, you need to read the edit comments a bit more carefully, because two of those were null COMMENT EDITS...with no actual editing or "changing" at all. Because I made very careful not to break 3 reverts (or even edits that can be considered reverts) in 24 hours. If you're referring to my "COMMENT EDITS:", that obviously was just a “null” or “dummy” edit type matter, when I made no actual edit...but just made a comment in the edit history thing. So please be careful when you write on here about me or about what I actually did. And again, to say that I decide what is "real consensus" is ridiculous, because it's obvious that it was really only you and BlackCab, and no longer Grrahnbahr...as he was ok with some kind of modification later on. Where in WP policy or pages does it say that two editors for a couple of days against one (or maybe two) other editor(s) is enough to constitute "consensus", where BlackCab would idiotically and snidely say at one point "nobody agrees with you, move on"?? Hence why I said what I said to him, regarding that arrogance. And why was what I said about "at least 3 or 4 editors" so wrong or out-of-place? You're acting like I said "30 or 40 editor should come in, and if they agree with you, then I'll back off"...no I never said something like that. "Three or four" is MORE than reasonable...given the circumstances. Gabby Merger (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes Gabby, it is quite clear that Grrahnbahr has some bias against me, and it's nice that you have also noted that. It is less 'nice' that you've decided to take my comments from the article's Talk page out of context, even though you know quite well that the sentence I was discussing made reference to celebrations and other customs with pagan origins. Your use of the JW pejorative term 'apostate' is tedious and insulting. Many editors, including yourself and Grrahnbahr have acknowledged that I have done good work on these articles, and you're welcome to provide evidence where I have indicated that an edit is redundant where it actually hasn't been. Your claim that "accurate things should NEVER be removed" is simplistic; if someone decided to say the sun is big every time the sun is mentioned in an article, that would be disruptive, even though the statement is accurate. Context usually governs whether something accurate is also necessary.

I have already provided the diffs of your changes to the statement in the article, and I did not include your 'null edits'. The diffs from 12 February, again:[186][187][188][189][190]. (Your other 'null' edits were [191] and [192].) The fact that Grrahnbahr was happy with "some kind of modification" isn't any indication that he supported your edit. Grrahnbahr stated at article Talk, "I have to admit Jeffro77 got a point when saying to claim true Christianity to be contrary to nominal Christianity, would be POV, as it indirectly claims that all nominal Christianity is false." He also said, "Since Jeffro77 did find the point redundant, I've removed it." So even despite Grrahnbahr's evident bias against me, which you have recognised, he was still more in agreement with my edit than he was with yours. So even though Grrahnbahr has used an 'opportunity' to continue an unrelated attack on me, the fact remains that 3 editors disagreed with your edit.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Some of those were just edits, and maybe tweakings of what I already did, not actual clear "reverts"...just a couple of those were reverts of your reverts, in that sense. Can't call any old edit dogmatically for sure a "revert" necessarily, (even though I understand the policy that not all "reverts" have to be physical "reverts" per se...but that's somewhat interpretive depending on just what and when and how it was done, and in what setting or situation or motive) Also, I said clearly a number of times now that Grrahnbahr only came around to my view to some extent...not completely. But that he did CONCEDE a point in a way, in the last part of his first comment on that talk page, in the last paragraph. He was conceding points to both you and me, if that's the case. (And also, why do apostates always get so uptight over the word apostate when it is what it is, even in a neutral sense? "Falling away" from the religion or former viewpoint. But I said that just because you're an apostate from the JW religion, I don't say you can never edit or contribute on that. Grrahnbahr may have told you that, but I never did. But you are a former JW, I gather then?) Anyway, again, Grrahnbahr did propose and try the edit of "true Christianity", but was struck down, even though in that sentence it could have theoretically been left like that, to make the point more precise, and clearer. It's whatever. Gabby Merger (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Your edits that I listed were reverts in the same broad sense as my edits that Grrahnbahr cited as 'evidence' that I breached the 3RR.

I did not say I am an 'apostate', I just said that your pejorative use of the term is tedious and insulting.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

"Jeffro and BlackCab fight off the minions of WT robots" - jehovahs-witness.net (an anti-jw talk forum). Out of this thread, I think it is quite obvious who's attacking who. I find it insulting that other users than Jeffro77 and BlackCab for all practical purposes are obstructed to edit the main article about JW. When even a small detail like a part of an sentence in the lead, is blocked, and you have to use 3O for all kind of even the smallest changes, how could another user improve the article in a larger scale? It is disappointing that the 3RR-violation didn't lead to a block. It would have forced Jeffro77 to rethink his behaviour. Grrahnbahr (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

How utterly punitive that would be. You seem to have a significant misunderstanding about the purpose of a block. As much as Jeffro might need to rethink their behaviour, YOU need to rethink your attitude DP 16:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

A one day block have no practical consequences for the one breaking the rules, but it gives a signal and may works like a warning. You can call it whatever you like, but it is better to appear to be punitive than a naive fool ready to be rolled over. If you've read this thread, you could for yourself see how he punches attack after attack, in a thread I've left without activity for several days. Unlike Jeffro77, the other users (BlackCab included) in the discussion respected the 3RR. By the way, since you're an admin here, and I am not, you could may be aware of that the discussions is all out of control, and is active at least three other places than here (at both Jeffro77's and BlackCabs talkpages, and the JW main article talkpage). The discussion at the main talk page is not even close to a consensus, and Jeffro77 have managed to get added a source from an non-academic former JW, well known for his biased presentation of the religion, before the page was protected. Grrahnbahr (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I found and added the Franz material as a source. JWs (who have generally never read a word of his books because they are not permitted by their organisation) don't like him as a source because they view him as an "apostate", but on Wikipedia he has never been successfully challenged as a reliable source of accurate and well documented information. BlackCab (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It's quite pathetic that Grrahnbahr tries to shoehorn some irrelevant third-opinion from some other website into what is ostensibly a complaint about breach of 3RR regarding what is actually a fairly trivial edit dispute, which has been given specific reasons at Talk that have nothing at all to do with Grrahnbahr's implications of bias. (And so what if members of some forum appreciate the fact that there are Wikipedia editors who counter pro-JW bias with a neutral view.) I freely admit that I was careless in my inattention to the fact that my revert on 13 February of Grrahnbahr's misleading edit was only about 19 hours after my revert of Gabby's edits on 12 February.

It's not remotely clear how I supposedly 'managed' to 'get' a source added by BlackCab before the page was protected as a result of Grrahnbahr's complaint. In what kind of universe does my inaction make me responsible for the combined actions of 3 other people??!!--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. There seems to be a number of separate content disputes leading to edit warring running over a week. I've fully protected the article for 10 days to encourage discussion about the issues. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Page

Staci Appel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Peace In Mississippi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595699409 by CFredkin (talk) added new source relating to Appel's authorship of statewide preschool programs bill."
2. 19:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595730969 by NeilN (talk) removed the date of the bill because it was not in the 1st source, kept the name of the bill HF-877 and added a 3RD source, please take it to the talk instead."
3. 20:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595770982 by NeilN (talk) information is sourced threefold. User NeilN please use the talk page to come to a consensus before reverting my sourced edits."
4. 20:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC) "added information relating to HF 877, with a source that was earlier removed. NeilN I have now given three sources do not revert again or you will be in violation of the three-revert-rule."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC) "/* READ THIS */ new section"
2. 14:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on
   TW
   "
3. 20:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   "

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC) "/* State-wide pre-school program */"
2. 15:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC) "/* State-wide pre-school program */ fix pronoun"
3. 19:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC) "/* State-wide pre-school program */"
4. 20:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC) "/* State-wide pre-school program */"

Comments:

20:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

3RR issues from last Wednesday: [194], [195]. Misuse of sources warning [196] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Sources provided are completely adequate and contain the language I've writtten into the encyclopedia. All information I have provided is important to the individual articles, concurrently, the information often comes from local news sources. My information is not meant to be biased but informative. User NeilN is now reverting every addition I produce due to personal bias and is refusing to stop.Peace In Mississippi (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I am biased against editors using Wikipedia to further a political agenda. As I'm not an American, the neighborhood kids' marbles game holds more interest for me than this race. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Most disturbing is not the edit war mentality, but the fact that when material has been shown not to be supported by a source, that the editor keeps trying to use the same source. If a source does not support a claim, the third and fourth time you use the source it still will not support the claim. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Collect I earlier have made the mistake of deeming information from the article that while not specifically stated was implied or could be inferred from an article. All of my recent edits have included sources, and User:NeilnN has continuously reverted my edits without using the talk pages, without reason, eventually citing that he simply believes I am biased as a reason to not include my information. As of now I have deemed it most responsible to only "quote" articles, therefore the information in undeniably included in the source.Peace In Mississippi (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

But when the source does not support the claim, it is actually worse than zero sources -- it is not "poorly sourced" it is misleadingly and fraudulently sourced. It is, in fact, the material of bans. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 days I've blocked just for the edit warring this time, we'll see what they do when the block expires but it may need a trip to ANI. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Page: Najahid dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: يوسف حسين (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [197]

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Revision as of 17:44, 12 February 2014 (removed seasonal taxing, among other edits)
2. Revision as of 17:58, 12 February 2014 (removed seasonal taxing, among other edits)
3. Revision as of 10:52, 13 February 2014 (removed seasonal taxing, among other edits; replaced sources almost entirely with one ref)
4. Revision as of 16:36, 13 February 2014 (removed seasonal taxing, among other edits; replaced sources almost entirely with one ref)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [198]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [199]

Comments:
The user has been edit warring on Najahid dynasty over contentious material with no consensus. He has in the process breached 3RR. He was also already both warned and blocked a few days ago for the same reason [200]. Middayexpress (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:BEBOLD. What? i can't add information to any page you "own"? I added texts and did not remove anything. You reverted my entire contribution to a worse version without discussing it first. haven't you noticed that you are the only reporting me constantly? I was not engaged in an editing war i was simply adding information to the article. Regarding the sources, see Talk:Najahid dynasty. You need to learn that other people may disagree with you instead of constantly reporting them to be blocked. --يوسف حسين (talk

) 19:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, bold is just the first part of the

WP:BRD process. It isn't the only part nor is it an excuse for revert warring. The talk page likewise shows that discussion was indeed ongoing, and there was no consensus for your edits to begin with; quite the opposite. Furthermore, the board explicitly states above that "undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." You thus indeed again violated 3RR, despite having just come off a block for that and being specifically warned to "wait for consensus" [201]. Since these are your own actions, be sure to assume full responsibility for them. Middayexpress (talk

) 19:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 22:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Much obliged! He's been really busy of late it seems. Middayexpress (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Flyer22, how did you establish some link between me and User:محبةالكتب/User:Samer154? Again Middayexpress, i was not engaged in edit warring. I did not "undo your work" i rewrote the entire article again. You are the one who should have reached census before restoring the article to its previous version. I was simply expanding the article and did not "undo his work" whatever that was. Good luck--يوسف حسين (talk

) 01:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

It is funny how you go ahead on your

WP:OWN and edit articles and end up with your version at the expense of everyone elses work. That is "undoing" people work, and you might mask it by making other edits but removing info from the lead that I reinserted, is undoing work. --Inayity (talk

) 11:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The article was crappy Inayaity. Very poorly sourced so i just edited as i suppose to do in wikipedia--يوسف حسين (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

What you are supposed to do is follow wikipedia rules and if there is an edit which is in dispute do not go ahead with how YOU think it should be, as you seem to be doing across wikipedia. You are not the master expert of these topics and other contributions are needed. Deleting ref which you do not like, moving stuff which you do not think all are missing the spirit of consensus editing, as a result the articles have radical mood swings and no progressive direction.

WP:NORUSH--Inayity (talk

) 12:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: Here is more of what I stated on this topic.

) 23:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Already blocked 4 days per a separate 3RR report. EdJohnston (talk) 13:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Page: Emperor discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Batiste Igienice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:
Several interactions with this user on finding a higher quality source for music videos has lead to no discussion. They have attempted to find new sources, but have apparently given up and just have reverted my edit about four times. As the links above show, they have been received a warning on their talk page about the 3RR (which was followed up with one on mine) and they ignored my request to take it to the talk page. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked. Batiste blocked for 10 days because of two very recent edit warring blocks. Andrzejbanas blocked for 24 hours, and contrary to their comment on their talk page, Batiste's edits were not vandalism. Both editors reverted seven times.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Page: Roxy Mitchell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [202] by Tentinator

Earlier reverts:

1. [203]
2. [204] *
3. [205]

Within 24 hours:

1. [206] *
2. [207]
3. [208]
4. [209] *

Comments:
Not involved in this, but I noticed that he has reverted several other editors over a particular area that he disagrees with. I've also indicated questionable uses of rollback with an asterisk, as using rollback to edit war is also unacceptable. Minima© (talk)

• Page protected. I've locked the article for three days as more than two editors are involved in the battle.

• Warned.
  WP:3RR over something very silly (often the case, unfortunately). You should have engaged in discussion on the article talk page (I see none). I strongly urge you to do so during the pendency of the lock. Any resumption of the battle after the lock expires may be met by blocks without notice.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 23:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• I have made my thoughts on the matter clear on the article's Talk. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 01:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)