Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive237

Page: Penn & Teller: Bullshit! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chunk5Darth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

1. 02:31, 13 February 2014‎ [1] Original edit by InedibleHulk that started the war. That paragraph had been stable for at least two years previously.[2][3]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:28, 14 February 2014‎ [4] 1RR.
2. 03:21, 15 February 2014 [5] 2RR.
3. 15:28, 14 February 2014 24-hour timeout: 1RR.
4. 08:09, 16 February 2014 [6] 2RR, 3rd revert.
5. 08:28, 16 February 2014 [7] Chunk5Darth warned using Template:uw-3rr.
6. 08:09, 17 February 2014 24-hour timeout: 1RR.
7. 08:47, 16 February 2014 [8] Chunk5Darth advised that edit warring is not allowed even if you think you are right.
8. 20:35, 17 February 2014‎ [9] 2RR, 4th revert (different content this time).
9. 21:15, 17 February 2014 [10] 3RR, 5th revert.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11][12]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I (Guy Macon) am an uninvolved third party.

The participants have been discussing the issue at Talk:Penn & Teller: Bullshit!#To "quote" or not to quote.

I also warned two other editors who had reverted more than once.[13][14] Neither has reverted since being warned. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected. I've locked the article for five days.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I was involved with some of the discussions after the first swathe of reversions, and involved in resolving (hopefully) the second one. I think that this is a bit much. ON the talk page, I specifically called it a "mini" edit war because 1. there were only 2 reversions before it fizzled out and 2.) it was over four characters, a minor grammatical point, particularly not Chunk5Darth. The "conflict" is, hopefully, over, and if not I see no indication of bad faith reversions by anyone involved, and I think it's very likely that, should they continue the discussion they'll do so appropriately, on the talk page. There is no need to lock the article, as these are minor points and it barely matters at all even if we were to flip back and forth between them every 30 seconds for the next month. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 01:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Reverting back and forth, whether over minor or major points, is disruptive. If you want to demonstrate that the article should be unlocked, then reach a clear consensus on the disputes. Your understanding of what is acceptable behavior does not conform to Wikipedia's policies or guidelines.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, given that they were minor points and that no one ever violated

WP:3RR was never even violated, it seems to me it's relevant that the consequences were non-existent. This isn't some special case where someone was edit-warring section blanking on a high traffic article or something. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib

] 01:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to note that if you look at the edit history, the most recent case of "Edit warring" was, if anything, Moriori being overzealous with the reversions. The only way Chunk5Darth is in violation of policy is if a 0RR rule is in place. The content he reverted today was conceptually very different from the 2RRs for which User:Guy Macon warned him >24 hours before. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 01:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring is a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions whether involving the same or different material on a single page. You may be confident that "it was over hours and hours ago", but I gave Chunk5Darth two warnings for edit warring, his only response was to revert two more times, and at least one other editor has also indicated that he does not accept the clear wording of Wikipedia:Edit warring, which clearly states that "it is no defense to say 'but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring'." The temporary page protection was a good call, given the lack of any indication from Chunk5Darth that he understands this. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a major misrepresentation of what has occurred. If you notice, you warned Chunk5Darth once. He responded saying (essentially), "This is very unencyclopedic content, I'm not sure what to do, please advise". You are counting your response to this as a second warning, when in fact it was a response to his plea for advice on the edit warring policy. If you'll notice, Point #8 is not a reversion of anything. We went through the proper procedure and built a consensus on how the page should look, he did a copyedit on the implementation thereof, and was reverted with a specious reason. After that, he reverted one time, specifically assuming good faith of the other editor - because it was an extremely minor grammatical point, there was no possible "compromise wording" that includes elements of both versions, so it's not unreasonable to revert a mistaken, good faith edit in this case. When he was reverted again he immediately dropped it. I am finding the disconnect between how we view these events to be disturbing. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 02:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Page

I Love Rock 'n' Roll (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595790162 by
   WP:NFCC
   "
2. 22:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595789867 by
   WP:NFCC
   violation"
3. 22:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Robman94 (talk) to last version by Kww"
4. 21:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595783905 by Robman94 (talk)only when OTRS confirms the license"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC) "/* I Love Rock 'n' Roll */ cmt"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Kevin is relying in the

exception for copyright violations. But it even says "Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider reporting to the Wikipedia:Non-free content review noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." 1) Rather than taking it to a noticeboard or nominate the image for deletion, Kevin decided to edit-war, regardless if this is correct or not, removing the image won't save the problem. Wikipedia may still violating copyrights even if it is not in an article page. Kevin denoted no intentions to take it to a noticeboard. 2) The image is being labelled as PD due to a probable OTRS ticket, if such ticket exists, it is obvious it is not a "clear copyright violation", but a clear edit-warring 3) One of those reverts includes the tool ). 22:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Spurious report. There's no ambiguity here:

WP:EW is about.—Kww(talk

) 22:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

And, to clear one thing up: the original uploader simply made the claim that he was going to sent OTRS documentation. It's apparent that no such documentation has ever been received.—Kww(talk) 23:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me ask you something. You removed the image, OK, which was your next step? Evidence denoted you would continue edit-warring, no intentions to stop, nor discuss, nor take it to FFD--regardless if you are right or not. You have removed the image, you won and solved Wikimedia from being sued, and then what? Why you didn't delete the file

© Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5

). 23:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Why do you keep talking about copyright violations as if that is the only issue? It's got the appropriate tags for eventual processing by OTRS, and they will delete it if it is appropriate to do so. If the OTRS office does approve it, then it can be used in an article. Until then, we need to act as if it is an unfree image, and, since there's no conceivable argument based on the NFCC which would justify its inclusion, it needed to be removed. Note that the

WP:ROLLBACK, either. —Kww(talk

) 23:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

In case you didn't know, either, if the OTRS ticket is false, or if this file fails

© Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5

). 23:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You keep claiming that I showed no intention of stopping removing the image as if that was a bad thing. I did place a message on Robman94's talk page. I did place messages on your talk page. After you reverted me with an edit summary of "

WP:ROLLBACK", I did provide an edit-summary that explained why I was reverting (although, as I pointed out above, your accusations that I misused the rollback tool are also specious). But no, I was not going to stop removing the image, because removal of the image is mandated by the NFCC.—Kww(talk

) 23:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Arguably if ORTS is pending (not proved accepted or not), it is reasonable to keep the image on the page in good faith that it will be free. We can deal with the issue when ORTS says there's a problem. (We actually don't have good advice that Im aware of on dealing with "in progress" ORTS requests but AGF that a request was put it until proven wrong, and if we end up with someone persistently abusing that system, that's blockable action). --MASEM (t) 23:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

After 3 months? AGF that it was placed and possibly lost makes sense, but we can't treat it as if it was de-facto approved. Note that I haven't been accusing people of fraud or threatening to block them, simply treating the image as if it were being used under a fair-use claim.—Kww(talk) 00:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok a couple of points for everyone:

• Kww Once Tbhotch (a respected, established user) reverted you (as well as Robman94) it no longer unquestionably violates the NFCC policy and so the 3RR exemption doesn't apply. Also there are many files used under a non-free claim that are still waiting for OTRS permission. Considering you also also didn't post at Wikipedia:Non-free content review which the 3RR exemption says you should do and you didn't nominate it for deletion.
• Tbhotch I don't have the power to remove admin rights and this noticeboard isn't in a position to decide that so I'm not going to make a comment as an admin dealing with this request

However given that Kww has stopped reverting I don't see any need to block, but I do encourage you to !vote at the deletion nomination. Also, undoing an edit with the reason "

" is not a good reason to edit war. So a trouting for Kww for breaching 3RR and not following up, a trout to Tbhotch for edit warring (consider ) 00:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Ordinarily I'd agree with Kww on this; the absence of OTRS confirmation within 90 days ordinarily justifies removal of the image. However, in this unusual case, the image of the single label itself might well be acceptable as a nonfree identifying image illustrating a contemporary copyrighted work. This therefore wasn't an unambiguous NFCC violation, and the 3RR exemption wouldn't apply. The original uploader should have provided an interim NFCC rationale pending OTRS approval; the editors arguing for its retention could easily have provided one; and Kww should have recognized that the image was appropriate for use and that such corrective action should have been called for rather than unnecessary removal. Trouts rather than sanctions are suitable here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I've got a different perspective than both of you, Hullaballo WOlfowitz and Callanecc. I think that where issues of copyright are concerns is the most important time not to revert, right or wrong, and discuss. Tbnotch & Robman94 should have 1) Explained why they felt that the PD claim was enough (which it wasn't and Robman94's claim that OTRS was taking too long is a non sequiter), or 2) Explained that the image could also have been used under NFCC, instead of as PD, and then they could've come to an agreement to change the license to NFCC and the image could have then been restored. Tbnotch and Robman94 are not innocent here at all.--v/r - TP 03:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
    • That's certainly closer to reality. I reiterate that the image cannot pass
      WP:NFCC in any fashion. Hullabaloo's argument fails to recognize that the identification claim is intended to allow people to readily identify an article by an image: there's no way that an article about a song that most people associate with Joan Jett will be made more recognizable to any of our readers by an image of the label (not the cover, the label) of an uncharted forty-year-old demo record, only made available to radio stations, of a version of the song that never charted in any country. That's a ludicrous argument that falls under the "clear NFCC violation" umbrella.—Kww(talk
      ) 04:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Page:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18]

Comments:
Not a 3RR violation, but definitely a return to edit warring after their recent block for the exact same thing. The article in question is peripherally related to the Syrian Civil War, so it may be a candidate for 1RR restriction. Locking the article for a while may help move edits to the talk page as well if the reviewing admin is looking for alternatives to blocks. User:Sayerslle was recently blocked for warring as well, though I am not seeing the same repeated attempts at inserting the same or slightly modified content from them. Notified both: [19], [20]. VQuakr (talk) 05:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

 Checking... Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

TOPIC: edit warring over a third party's User Talk page

Page: User talk:Petrarchan47 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

3RR warning: link

I'll cut to the chase here to summarize thusly: @Petrarchan47 reverted my citing of a media organization's Youtube channel with the edit summary "Third time removing youtube video". In order to stop the edit warring I advised her on her Talk page that Wikipedia understands that news agencies have been known to post video to Youtube and it is acceptable to cite this if a cite directly to the media outlet's website is not possible or somehow less useful/appropriate to readers. Given how undisputed this is I believe it would waste the time of third parties to initiate a discussion on the particular article Talk page. When an editor is clearly mistaken about something such that there's little "discussion" to be had should third parties be participating and when that something isn't article context related (like erroneously believing that there is a total unconditional ban on all citations to videos posted on Youtube) I would think that this is what user Talk pages are designed for. But a 3rd party here, Binksternet, insists on removing any remark of my mine from Petrarchan47's Talk page.

I don't recall ever initiating something on this noticeboard despite my many years on Wikipedia but this case strikes me as quite unprecedented, since the edit warring is over the removal of an effort to initiate a discussion that would reducing the edit warring with a third party. I think one would be hard pressed to imagine an case that would be more contrary to the spirit of edit war reduction than an edit war over whether to have any discussion with a third party over an edit war. --Brian Dell (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The only thjing that I'm not seeing in this report is a simple question: were you ever, at any time, requested by that user to stay off their talkpage. If yes, then your first post there was harassment and could lead to a block, no matter what. Binksternet would therefore have been doing you a favour by removing it. If no, then there may be other issues at play. ES&L 17:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Well you would take that view of course when you once manipulated text that was attributed to me on YOUR user Talk page in order to have it present my view in a way you preferred and refused to allow me the right to have my words say what I wanted to say, declaring absolute sovereignty over "your" Talk page. Re "harassment", Petrarchan47 may continue to be too caught with up

WP:HOUND me to consider my latest statement to her harrassment.--Brian Dell (talk

) 18:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Petrarchan47 asked Bdell555 on January 31 to stay off of her user talk page. She said:

We do have the right to ask people to leave their talk pages alone - and I am asking you this now. I will engage you on the talk page of articles IF you can keep your arguments concise and based in RS, not in OR or SYNTH. I am not into drama and will not engage with this type of energy... From here, with regard to gripes you have about my behaviour, do not make them in the edit summaries. (And I will not either.) Take concerns to a noticeboard, even an ANI, and yes, I will listen to what the community has to say.

Brian Dell quickly acknowledged that request. He then proceeded to ignore the request with this series of edits later the same day—an exceedingly disrespectful act. I removed these comments 18 minutes later. On February 2 he posted again on her talk page, posting a hateful comment accusing her of falsehood and telling her he would not pay any attention to her response, and I removed that post as well.

Brian Dell has been edit-warring his accusatory comments into her talk page[21][22][23] which shows that he does not respect her. I have been removing his posts in accordance with her wishes.

It looks like an

interaction ban is called for, one that prevents Brian Dell from interacting with Petrarchan47. Binksternet (talk

) 17:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

What I respect is Wikipedia and what the Wikipedia community calls for. The community calls for discussion instead of edit warring. And so it is that I have attempted to discuss instead of edit war with Petrarchan47. If Petrarchan47, or anyone else, requests something of me I endeavour to accommodate. Note that I accommodated Petrarchan47 in the thread the request was made as she continues to have had the final word there. I had a reply, it was deleted, and it remains deleted. This is an edit war about something new. Stopping the edit war means we have to discuss. Binksternet's demand for no interaction is thus fundamentally opposed to Wikipedia's instructions. This is why I've raised Binksternet's edit warring here: the fundamental object is to gag someone trying to put a stop to edit warring and is edit warring to accomplish this end! By the way, I could give the "other side" of the history Binksternet outlines here but does the community really want to go there?--Brian Dell (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

There has been no violation of 3RR.

talk

) 18:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

My apologies. I thought the point of this noticeboard was increasing editor awareness of edit warring problems and how to solve them. I now understand this board is for reporting 3RR violations. I suppose I'm just too "big picture" here.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Brian, I have not stopped you from discussing issues with Petrarchan47 on the talk pages of articles you are both interested in. I am not trying to "gag" you. I have merely upheld her admonition that you keep off her user talk page. Please keep your discussions about content issues on the relevant article talk pages. Binksternet (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Not blocked. Brian Dell now understands that this page is for reporting edit warring incidents for administrative action. Binksternet seemed to be doing both Brian Dell and Petrachan47 a favor by removing comments that Petrarchan47 might consider harrassment.

Brian Dell, you are instructed to keep off someone's talk page when requested, forever, not just for the duration of one incident. Please respect that.

Binksternet, in this case it may have been better to let Petrarchan47 take whatever action s/he deemed necessary. ~

talk

) 20:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Brian's reverts on Petrarchan's user talk were totally inappropriate IMO. Let's get that out of the way. In addition Bink's reverts on the same page were controversial at best. See

WP:RPA. This isn't the first time Bink has policed Petrarchan's user talk for content Bink (not Petrarchan) objects to. --Dr. Fleischman (talk

) 20:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC) (involved editor)

Page: Highland Clearances (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sabrebd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) & camerojo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff between revisions 595863894 and 59511292]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff between revisions 596084056 and 596086408]
2. [diff between revisions 5960034 and 595999256]
3. [diff between revisions 59595669 and 595945392]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [diff between revisions 596094726 and 595842860 ] & [diff between revisions 596094686 and 595355315 ]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff between revisions 5960702575 and 596066351] & [diff between revisions 596083468 and 596080094]

Comments: This has been an edit-war by two different users who are overwriting material on numerous occasions. There has been deletion of material with clearly verifiable sources, and there has been zero use of ^{[citation needed]} to ask for clarification of sources for material that either user believes is not commonly understood to be true. The reverts include the verbatim copying of material from another wikipedia article that has only peripheral relation to the subject matter, that I nevertheless subsequently made available at the top of the subsection, but to little avail in the revert-war Scottish religion in the eighteenth century. I suspect that the material in that other article is written by one of the users too. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I am very happy for this to be investigated. My most recent edit deleted nothing. I simply reinstated a valuable and well sourced contribution by another user that had been previously deleted by the complainant. Camerojo (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Not only did you add material that was from an edit war that DID delete material, and lead to subsequent discussion, but there is replication of material that is elsewhere in the article. Simply not deleting material does not make your contribution any less inflammatory. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I am happy for it to be investigated too. I made one edit in the last 24 hours and when it was reverted I made one revert, I believe with consensus on the talkpage. I then went to the talkpage to attempt to find out why the material had been removed again. I have tried to ask the question in various forms, but have not been able to get a straightforward reply from the ip. I have not reverted again. The ip editor continues to edit and push their agenda without support from any other editors on the talkpage and frankly is not engaging in a real discussion on the talkpage. They have declared that if any changes are made they will just revert them here.--SabreBD (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

For the removal of any doubt, I too am happy. Your last link shows that I did not say that if 'any' changes are made I will revert them. I said if there is deletion of material that has a verifiable source, or that you do not ask for a citation for (in the event that you do not believe the information is commonly understood) I will revert it to it's original state. On several occasions I invite you to make additions without deleting material in such a provocative manner:

[here], [here again], [for the third time], [for the fourth time], [for the fifth time], [here for the sixth time], and finally [here]. On each occasion I ask that you do not delete material with a verifiable source, not delete material that you do not ask for a citation for if you believe it is not commonly understood to be true. Four reverts and seven times I state why there is a basic problem of aggressive deletion, alongside verbatim copying of material from another article that has a peripheral connection removing the context surrounding the material in the article in question.93.186.23.96 (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• WP:3RR is the IP.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 01:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Page: List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CloudKade11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [24]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [25]
2. [26]
3. [27]
4. [28]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned twice: [29] [30]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: CloudKade11 has a history of edit warring on several articles. In another article (see Talk:After (The Walking Dead)) he made one comment on the discussion but continued to edit war after several editors continued trying to discuss with him. It's pointless to try to discuss his edit warring with him. Look at his history. Thank. 107.15.200.87 (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Note. I've blocked CloudKade11 for one week for violating
  WP:3RR. I've also semi-protected the page for one week because there's too much disruptive IP editing, IP-hopping, and editing by brand new accounts.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 01:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

Kewtea (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 20:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC) to 20:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
   1. 20:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 594997686 by Zero Serenity (talk) it is valid...."
   2. 20:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC) "i added a more reliable source to lindy tsang"
2. 15:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595777571 by Zero Serenity (talk) LINDY TSANG IS NOTABLE"
3. Consecutive edits made from 20:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC) to 21:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
   1. 20:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595888133 by Zero Serenity (talk) Why don't you think she's notable enough and don't bash on my all-caps."
   2. 20:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595888133 by Zero Serenity (talk) Why don't you think she's notable enough and don't bash on my all-caps."
   3. 21:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC) "i added lindy tsang because she is a well-known YouTube personality who has over 2 million subscribers and even has her own brushes line. I have a proper source from a French magazine."
4. 21:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 596086014 by Zero Serenity (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. None; attempts would have been fruitless, as the user apparently does not read their talk page (or any other)

Comments:

The account appears to be an SPA with the sole purpose of promoting Lindy Tsang/Bubzbeauty. They've created the pages in mainspace several times under multiple names (which have been deleted each time) as well as submitting under multiple names to AfC. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this sums up my experience as well. Zero Serenity (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

List of YouTube personalities. Another admin has now salted Lindy Tsang and Bubzbeauty to keep either of those articles from being re-created again. EdJohnston (talk

) 14:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Page

Mughal-e-Azam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Shaku india (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Colourisation */"
2. 07:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Colourisation */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

It was done on the user's talk page: User talk:Shaku india.

Comments:

Keeps deleting content from

) 08:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Message from shaku_india to Kailash29792 :

Hi Kailash29792,

You and I and keep arguing on the matter. Instead of doing the same, let us talk to the authorities. Let us talk to the producers and the copyright holder Sterling Investment Corp Ltd (of Shapoorji Pallonji group). If you are okay, we can write a joint mail to them and settle the matter. The same has been suggested by Bollyjeff.

Further, his would also be in the interest of the film and also of wikipedia.

Let us work constructively towards finding a solution.

Best Regards, Shakuntala Jain ([email protected]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaku india (talk • contribs) 09:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• WP:SPA, has a very sporadic history at Wikipedia, but keeps returning and removing sourced content from the same article despite warnings. I therefore blocked them for disruption.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 01:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Page: 2freehosting.com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 23:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

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

1. 23:16, 19 February 2014 (edit summary: "")
2. 23:18, 19 February 2014 (edit summary: "")
3. 23:23, 19 February 2014 (edit summary: "")
4. 23:39, 19 February 2014 (edit summary: "")

• Diff of warning: 23:30, 19 February 2014

Repeated addition of low-quality links as refs, despite repeated warnings and a 3RR warning on the user's talk page. —- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Page: Croats (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: [31]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:55, 15 February 2014
2. 13:32, 15 February 2014
3. 18:22, 18 February 2014
4. 04:24, 20 February 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User was warned in the edit summary [32] and I have even started a discussion about this on

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This was discussed at

Comments:
As can be seen from the attached links, I have tried to talk this through with the user in question both in edit summaries and on

) 10:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I have to add something here, User:Правичност is already been reported for 3RR (see here [34]), (see here [35]) and (see here [36]). Constantly offends other colleagues who disagree with him. (see here [37]) Thanks.--Sokac121 (talk) 11:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Shokatz why do you say you tried to discuss this with me, when you havent, i already told you i put my arguments on "Croats talk page" but nobody was interested in these changes, so why revert me back if you dont want to discuss new possibilities? This all started when Croatian editors would support eachoder in an attempt to raid "Serbs article", Sokac121 was the main perpetrator of this idea, to degrade number of Serbs and remove good sources. I seen same editors also edit numbers at Croats article... so then i asked my self, why do they come to degrade number of Serbs and remove good sources and on the other hand they use unnofficial sources next to the official ones to inflate numbers of Croats and as you can se my edit`s are actually of good contribution to the Croats article, because they show a realistic picture- as you cannot count more than 6,5 million Croats in that infobox (and even 6,5 mil. is too high, because it consists weird figures such as 250,000 and 400,000 Croats in Argentina and Chile... that is biased) However it doesnt go over 6,4 mil. counting all together.. this is why Sokac121 inflated number of Croats using unnofficial sources for USA and New Zealand to make it look much larger and even with these sources it doesnt reach 7,4 million... The total population of Croats is 1,2 - 2,2 million more than it is in reality on "Croats article" and you are trying to justify that, and collectively involved in making a mess of "Serbs article" trying to turn demographics on its head... editors like Sokac121 calls any Serbian source "Greater-Serbian-chetnik-nationalist-propaganda source" .. but he aprooves every Croatian source stating 10 times more Croats in a significant country than there are in reality. One of your Croatian editor`s Scrosby asked me kindly to back away from editing Croats article and Croats wont edit Serbs article in exchange, because he hates these edit wars from both sides and that he is aware of Sokac121 actions, but he cant stop him... I agreed and then what happened next... Sokac121 shortly after backing up started edit attacks again (4th time on same thing in last couple of months) and again as he came, accusements came aimed towards me, like it is my fault for him coming to Serbs article edit warring with bad arguments (that were never supported even after article got protected 3 times because of him) same thing over and over again in past 8 months or so (Total number of Serbs) .. these figures are something that is burning his soul from inside as i can assume. I believe it isnt neccesarry to dig out Sokac121`s edit warre history (with help of some other Croatian editors) on Serbs article... because anybody can see it in his edit history... 1 million times edit warring same thing, after 3 times of made consensuses, finished debates he comes again and strikes again 4th time with same argument ("number of Serbs is too much, ebcause i think so") and he never even got warned or reported- is this a serious user, contributor to wikipedia? - no, not for me. Name anything aimed against Serbs - he will be there, name anything agaisnt me- he will be there- Name anything in favour of Croats- he will be there... his contributions to wikipedia are of nationalist political aimed goals.. obviously trying to make a propaganda .. how to make Croats number more than Serbs (first he claimed Croats number 8 mil. , then 9 million ... first he claimed Serbs number 10 million, now 9 million) .. its so obvious ... eventhough official demographics of both ethnic groups in the Balkans and estimates of both diaspora`s show clearly that Serbs THROUGHOUT history, number about 1x more than Croats in general... but he and some other croatian editors want(ed) to change that on wikipedia. If anybody should be silent of accusing, it`s Sokac121, 1 year constant edit warring on number of Serbs and he is still in game - the true master of internet war disaster.... And btw Shokatz (reffering to the other editor who reported me here) .. You have reported me for 3 rule edit warre, but i didnt do 3 reverts... so i dont understand.. any collective accusements from the Croatian team that puts against me, meets no success.. in this conspiracy where i am "fighting alone" without any support of any other Serbian editors, this makes me feel proud, because i know i am not doing anything wrong; all im am trying to do is stop nationalist attacks on Serbs article (one comes with linguist sources to replace existing sources, one comes with arguments sources are bad and "too many Serbs, too many Serbs" ("cry,cry")), but they are all actually just being bothered to see so many Serbs more than their ethnic group counts, that is a natural reaction of someone being nationalist ofcourse... that is why a nationalist raider also cant understand something as logical as a fact that today remaining 8 million Serbs in Balkans, throughout history produced a Serbian diaspora of over 3,5 million people. But on the other hand it is totally acceptable for them to claim that today`s 4,5 million Croat population in Balkans produced a 4,5 million diaspora also. Double standards, double faced way of thinking, but more important - not respecting "neighbour`s" soruces, but always supporting "your homeland" sources. This will all stop when Sokac121 will stop vandal attacks and start to behave normally, without dragging Croatian team to edit warre Serbs article number of Serbs. Regards (Правичност (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC))

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 12:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC) to 12:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
   1. 12:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 12:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 16:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 17:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 04:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on
   TW
   )"
2. 15:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on
   TW
   )"
3. 15:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC) "/* February 2014 */ wkfd"
4. 16:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC) "Final warning notice on
   TW
   )"
5. 20:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 15:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Unconstructive edit */ new section"

Comments:

The user seems to make unconstructive edits and images, which alters the page layout all without an edit summary. Intimation made at article's talk page. Also notices and warnings were repeatedly issued at the user's talk page, but no response or explanation has been provided so far. βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 06:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• Result: No action for now. Both Balablitz and Saffrin have been hitting the revert button a lot since 16 February. If this continues (without discussion) blocks may be issued. Balablitz's reference to vandalism (above) is not correct. EdJohnston (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Page

Ta-Nehisi Coates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 596412454 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) Failed to give me time to discuss this issue; reverting back so as not to reward improper behaviot"
2. 22:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 596396966 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) Gamaliel violated the 3-revert rule; please do not reward their behavior by defaulting page to that version."
3. 21:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 596393933 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) This isn't undue since author writes on blacks and crime and cites this incident in his work."
4. 20:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 596387711 by Gamaliel (talk) Revert unexplained "disagreement" with previous edit. Please explain why you are deleting this or don't delete it."
5. 20:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 596380297 by Gamaliel (talk) As already noted, this is relevant due to author's subject matter in writings."
6. 02:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 596265889 by Gamaliel (talk) Author's work makes this relevant"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Arrest for assault */"
2. 21:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Arrest for assault */"

Comments:

Single-purpose account making tendentious negative edits to a BLP, has been reverted multiple times by two different editors. User has been warned, discussion attempted - to no avail, the reverts keep coming. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I am the user in question. I strongly dispute this one-sided portrayal. Just because you don't like my edit doesn't make it "tendentious", and it doesn't make me a "single-purpose account." Please note that a previous user had repeatedly reverted this page without discussing it, but somehow escaped your notice. I have repeatedly called for discussion; you and the other have repeatedly escalated this by reporting it and blaming me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Useitorloseit (talk • contribs) 23:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

User in question has now reverted six times despite numerous warnings and awareness of this thread. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: I just reverted the user again. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• Note I have invited User:Useitorloseit to self-revert this violation of 3RR. If he does not either self-revert or admit the violation, I will block his account. —C.Fred (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

User responded well to my message. Assuming there are no further reverts, I do not think any sanction is necessary. —C.Fred (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: Lucius.veruss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: article version reverted to redirect (preferred by Lucius.veruss)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

De Vere family

1. [38]
2. [39]
3. [40]

Earl of Oxford

1. [41] (reinserting inline external link, removed by Kolbasz)

Verus (gladiator)

1. [42] (reinserting inline external link, afterwards again removed by Kolbasz)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [none, see comment below]

Comments:

Lucius.veruss started as IP inserting external links to www.houseofvere.com on several pages (namely disambigs) some weeks ago, reverted by different users (Billinghurst, Xezbeth, Kolbasz, and others), sometimes more than once (see eg. [44], [45], [46]). After creating an account again he kept adding this link eg. [47], and he ignored spam warning on his talk page, see [48] by Kolbasz. Then he started creating empty category pages holding his external link [49] and creating misleading redirects (variants of Vere family to the Earl title). Now he claims that a new article

), so that it looks as if I wrote nonsense. Because of this I don't think further warnings from me make sense. Editwar warning also left on the users talk page.

Please notice that I do not have any relation to this "Vere" topic. I found it only by accident through Wikidata and thought it can be helpful to write a stub for the noble family (dewiki and itwiki already have articles).

In case this is the wrong page to ask for admin help, please move my report to a better place (it's my first enwiki report about a problematic user). My main interest is that now someone else takes care for this user, and hopefully changes

) 05:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Lucius.veruss: In reply to all this 'stuff' from Holger1959 - I must say this Wikipedia stuff is all new to me, but it is very very clear that this Holger1959 has absolutely no idea about the history of the Vere/de VERE family. The family has asked me to put some information online and if that's a problem for Wikipedia or just doesn't want the truth, other who do.

I feel bounced up and down by those online bullies we hear about, all whilst going through a learning curve to just place correct and known Vere information online with this Wikipedia.

So why such an attack on a new user content provider and messenger, why not help out instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucius.veruss (talk • contribs) 06:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• A couple of comments: "the family has asked me to put some information" is exactly
  Be Bold, if it's Reverted, then you must Discuss in order to obtain new consensus for inclusion. In terms of being helped, I can see a mix of personalized messages, and standard messages that explain all of these same issues on your usertalkpage, so you were helped, and because you ignored that help, you've arrived here - not out of a sense of bullying, but in a sense of "we're being ignored, we now have to protect the project". Did you read the friendly assistance on your talkpage? Did you follow all the blue links to policies there, and the ones I linked above? DP
  08:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Lucius.veruss: OK am starting to get the idea, seems I should self impose time out and printout some of these policies before I do any more. Suggest we can consider the matter closed/resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucius.veruss (talk • contribs) 09:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda: thank you for the outside view! I don't want to provoke the ongoing of the editwar, so I would be happy if someone else could decide about the article vs redirect issue. do you have an advice what to do with [52] or where to ask for a decision? (at dewiki usually other uninvolved users decide, don't know what I can do here or what the best next step is) Holger1959 (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

@

Identifying reliable sources, 2) Information style and tone, 3) Structure of the article. In regard to the De Vere/Vere question you might later discuss with other users about moving the page (not copy & paste!), but I think the exact pagetitle is a secondary issue. Holger1959 (talk

) 23:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not stepping into a content discussion - that's what

WP:DR processes are for :-) DP

23:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

@

WP:3O. Is this enough, or what else am i expected to do or not to do now? The formal processes on enwiki are still not really clear to me. Holger1959 (talk

) 01:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Result:
  reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 23:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for entering my complaint on the wrong page.

I have written several pieces that have been deleted by bad faith edits by User:Oknazevad‎.

I have attempted to address the issues on the Talk Pages. Yet User:Oknazevad‎ habitually reverts my edits.

There is a pattern that the editor seeks to delete the historical record of certain train lines. I have thoroughly addressed the pertinent issues on the talk pages.

First, re the Raritan Valley Line.

Latest revert: [53]

Editor's previous revert at the same page: [54]

Earlier revert of my work at same page: [55]

Earlier revert of my work at same page: [56]

There are more instances of reverts at the next one,

. Will the User then insist one splitting the article into two articles because operating a train from NJ into the Poconos (in PA) on to Scranton (in PA) will involve two different state agencies?

The user is ignoring the point that I have in good faith made on the User Talk pages, that the Main Line does not terminate at Suffern, NY. It continues to Port Jervis. The longer distance trains have a precedence of by-passing intermediate stops going back to the days of the road being operated by the Erie Railroad. (There are other long distance commuter lines which skip over intermediate stations. This happens on the NJ transit NE Corridor line and on several lines of the LIRR. Skipping stations does not make the line into two different lines. If one inspects the Pascack Valley Line schedule, the other NJ-NY interstate commuter line, one will see that there are some trains that skip several stations. But the article for that line is not one targeted for making two separate articles.) After all, the line is four-tracked to allow for such by-passing. The tickets are sold by NJ Transit machines all along the route, regardless of whether one is in NJ or in NY. In conclusion, there should be a merging of the Port Jervis Line article with the Main Line (NJ Transit) article.

Latest edit, Jan. 13: [57]

Previous edit, Jan. 8: [58]

Previous edit, Jan. 7: [59]

Previous edit, Jul. 27: [60]

I am appealing for Wikipedia administrators to arbitrate in this case. Dogru144 (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, not editwarring. (No where near 3RR). Here's the truth Dogru boldly added a line to the Main Line article way back in July 2013. seing it as more appropriate to the

WT:NYPT, a project that the Main Line article falls under the scope of, but at no point has he ever started such a discussion. As for the RVL part, I have no idea where he ever gets calling four unrelated edits spaced months apart edit warring. Especially when there are factual errors introduced in some of them as clearly explained in the edit summaries.oknazevad (talk

) 21:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Oknazevad is not aware that when you make 4 edits you are violating the 3 revert rule. This is the definition of edit warring.

The user has clearly made that violation. This is simply a matter of that User to dismiss this as a content dispute. One person's content dispute is another person's edit war. This is not for that editor to judge. This is for the administrators. Also, I noticed that you have just deleted some of what I had posted on this page. I'd suggest that you write carefully and refrain from deleting my comments, especially on this page. If User:Oknazevad is confused, I suggest that the editor carefully read what I have posted on the Talk Pages for the two articles under dispute. Again, User:Oknazevad has not substantively responded to my points, particularly to the multiple precedents of other commuter rail lines being operated across state lines by different states but having only one wikipedia article. Dogru144 (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I realize that the opening statement should have read as "when you make 4 reverts you are violating the 3 revert rule."Dogru144 (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Three things - 1: the three revert rule isn't a rule, you can be editwarring even if you have fewer reverts. 2: with that said I don't see any indication that

WP:3RR violations or any other editwarring. Simonm223 (talk

) 22:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Oknazevad was deleting back and forth my valid, factual contributions. That's edit warring.

User:Oknazevad did not respond to my substantive comments on the Talk Page such as my above comments, which get to the crux of the issue on the debate over the NJ Transit Main Line article, that there are other commuter lines that cross state lines and are administered by agencies of the two different states yet they don't have separate articles. His edit reverts after I had taken time to address the issues on the Talk Page. That is bad faith editing on his part.Dogru144 (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Um, I did respond. In fact, it's the most recent edits on the talk page. So I don't know why you think I didn't. Also, can we please remove the duplicate section here. I believe they were caused by my first response. My attempt to remove them with such an explanation in the edit summary was reverted with a bad faith accusation of vandalism. oknazevad (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The edit history of the pages you cited don't seem to support accusations of edit warring to me. Unless there's personal interaction going on between the two of you that I missed I'd suggest that Dogru144 calm down, take a step back and attempt to resolve edit conflict at talk rather than the noticeboards. Simonm223 (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Um, long-term edit-warring is still edit-warring. Someone was

WP:CONSENSUS. Edit-warring can be 4 edits in 24 hours, but can also be 3 edits in 6 months DP

01:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

And that's precisely what happened. Dogru added, I reverted, and he re-added without discussion. oknazevad (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Page: Ahir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 207.34.229.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [61]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
6. 6
7. 7
8. 8

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See this, Cluebot and this

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

was introduced.

Comments:

The IP has been problematic in the past at Talk:Yadav. Yadavs are a related community & one that some people consider to be synonymous, so the chances are very high that this is the same person. They got an NPA warning that time. - Sitush (talk) 08:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 36 hours Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Page

Chris Kyle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

UnknownUnknown2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Alleged confrontation with Jesse Ventura */"
2. 03:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Alleged confrontation with Jesse Ventura */"
3. 02:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Alleged confrontation with Jesse Ventura */"
4. 22:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Alleged confrontation with Jesse Ventura */"
5. 03:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Alleged confrontation with Jesse Ventura */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Chris Kyle */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 03:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ new section"

Comments:

Blocked indef by AuburnPilot. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Page

IOS 7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

As11ley (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 15:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC) to 15:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
   1. 15:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 596345356 by BigBenzino (talk)"
   2. 15:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC) "iOS 7 has not "ruined" the iPhone 4. Reverted this edit because of vandalism."
   3. 15:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid vandalism edit. iOS 7 has received mostly pssitive reviews, please do not change this. If you want to dispute this then please do so on the talk page."
2. 12:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 596315242 by Emaren19 (talk)"
3. 09:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 596250125 by Emaren19 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC) "General note: Harassment of other users. (
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Hello everybody, I am user As11ley

I recently got involved in an edit war with user

. I have only attempted to undo revisions in which I feel are disruptive to the article. In undoing the revisions I asked Emaren19 numerous times to discuss this on the talk page for iOS 7, however he ignored and carried on with what I feel as disruptive editing. Also to add, Emaren19 has also been leaving harassing and rude comments to me on my talk page, I would like someone to check this out as I feel quite shocked by this.

Thanks for your time and really hope to get this situation resolved as quickly as possible.

As11ley (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2014 (GMT)

• Warned. Both
  WP:3RR, but both have reverted three times. The only way this issue can be resolved is through discussion. Both editors are now on notice that if they resume the war, they may be blocked without warning.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 08:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, I never intended to be involved in an edit war, however Emaren19 has repeatedly reverted my edits on iOS 7. After reverting my edits he then takes to harassing me on my talk page. I suggested that if he disagrees with what has been on iOS 7 for months then he should discuss in on the talk page rather than harassing me on my talk page, however he contented to ignore me.

As11ley (talk) 09:04, 21 February 2014 (GMT)

Well, you did call their edits "vandalism" - since Wikipedia has an extremely strict definition of

WP:BRD process...not WP:BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRDRDDRRRRDDRRRDDRRRR DP

09:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

Portugal Editor Exploration (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

[62]

Diffs of the user's reverts

[63] [64] [65]

+ numerous others

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[66]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Check the page history Charles (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Page

Ronn Torossian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

• [67]

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC) "Pls comment on the talk page before disagreeing with other editors. Gossip source on a BLP and undue influence with one source. ANd unnecessarily unkind."
2. 03:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC) "Proposed Edit is very personal referring to a live persons dead mother. 4 lines of a lawsuit from a gossip column is not worthy of dictionary. Seems unneccesarily hurtful and personal and petty."
3. 22:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC) "Per comments on Talk Page, need better sources than gossip columns as this was"
4. 19:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC) ""
5. 17:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC) "pls comment on talk page"
6. 16:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC) "$8 Million Dollar purchase is noteable news as is the fact that it was owner of ny knicks home. this is newsworthy."

• Revert subsequent to this report being filed: [68]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC) "/* February 2014 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• [69]

Comments:

The user, along with

.

Specifically, the user wants the article to reflect that the subject made a real estate purchase, but not mention that he is being sued for libel.

Resorting to third-party forums before exhausting the discussion at the talk page fits into a pattern of edits by User:Babasalichai et al. Mosmof (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to note that I was going to file this report as well -- so it has backing from someone who hasn't been involved in any of the recent editing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one month for block evasion (User:Babasalichai). This IP has been used before by the same banned account.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [70]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:
Edit warring of whether a particular section of England should or should not be listed in the lead section seems particularly unwise on a page with rather more serious issues to deal with. DES ^(talk) 18:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

"Rochdale" can refer to a bunch of things, and so can Lancashire, so that is why I kept adding "England" back as a qualifier. BTW, the third revert is a self-revert. Epicgenius (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) At least one participant has now backed off and is discussing on the article talk page. DES ^(talk) 18:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Epicgenius, then perhaps I copied the wrong diffs, but there were at least three non-self reverts, check the history. DES ^(talk) 18:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Two reverts were a revert of a possible BLP violation and other unsourced content; I apologize if I reverted them wrongly. (These are not the reverts that are part of the edit war.)

By the way, why isn't Auchunesha (talk · contribs) mentioned here? The user was the other participant in the edit war, not DESiegel. Epicgenius (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I was about to report Auchunesha (talk · contribs) separately (the page doesn't seem set up for joint warnings), when R/L intervened, and the edit war seemed to have stopped. The reveiwing admin should consider the reverts of Auchunesha also, who was also warned, and has not yet discussed on the talk page, as far as I know. DES ^(talk) 18:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe that you can put more than one user to report by putting another "userlinks" template next to the first one.

Anyway,

WP:SPA, as their only action was to revert my edits on the article; they have not made any edits to any other article. Epicgenius (talk

) 18:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I will remember that, I hope. Auchunesha (talk · contribs) may well be an SPA, but the account was only created yesterday, so it is early to asses that. Lots of editors start out doing only one thing, and then branch out. I did. Others don't. DES ^(talk) 19:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, hopefully Auchunesha will come to this noticeboard to explain themselves. Epicgenius (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected. I've semi-protected the article for one week. I'm troubled most by the edits of User:Auchunesha and User:Wkvm, both of whom are new accounts (Wkvm was created first earlier this month), both of whom are interested only in this article, and they edit in tandem. I suspect they are related, but for the moment semi-protection will prevent the damage they've been doing to the article as neither is auto-confirmed.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Page: Substantial (rapper) (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: [76]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [77] 020 21 Feb using Peace account, removing AfD notice
2. [78] 038 21 Feb, using his "TheKillingNoise" "secondary account" making same revert, but keeping AfD notice
3. [79] 1:24 21 Feb, again restoring poorly sourced and unsourced material to a BLP]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [81]

Comments:
User used two separate accounts to make the reverts - and had been warned previously not to use two accounts on one article. User always blanks his talk page e.g. [82] after sock warning, [83] 3RR warning, [84] EW warning, [85] EW and blatant misuse of source warning, [86] EW warning, [87] EW block notification, [88] AfD notification and noting use of an "old account" to appear as two editors warning. His response was thanks for pointing it out that I was on the wrong account, for some reason when I log into wikimedia I have to use TheKillingNoise and it transfers over.) which is not really all that reasonable as an excuse as logging into a "wrong account" has never been accepted for major edits. Collect (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked. I blocked the old account indefinitely. I blocked Peace in Mississippi for two weeks for edit warring, removal of AfD tag, and sock puppetry.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Page: Holocaust denial (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}
User being reported: JankoNilovic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [89]

This is a report of cross-day edit warring and POV pushing (despite warnings and a talk page discussion) rather than a 3 RR violation per-se

Diffs of the user's reverts:

19/20 February

1. [90]
2. [91]

22 February

1. [92]
2. [93]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: discussion started at Talk:Holocaust denial#Standard term by JankoNilovic, but he's ignoring the total lack of support for his edit there and keeps on edit warring.

Comments:

This account was last active in 2011 (only briefly), and was warned for edit warring [95] and POV pushing [96] in the Holocaust denial article then. As such, this appears to be a POV-pushing only account. Nick-D (talk) 09:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I was in the process of raising an AIV report when I saw this. I'm probably too involved with the article to block him myself but I think a block is warranted.

talk

) 09:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Same here. Bishonen | talk 10:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC).

Blocked indefinitely for edit warring and POV pushing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Page

2014 Venezuelan protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Communist-USSR (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. 19:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on 2014 Venezuelan protests."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 19:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Whitewashing */ new section"
2. 19:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC) "comment"

Similar concerns have recently been expressed by other editors: [97], [98] etc.

Comments:

In under 12 hours, we have:

1. [99]
2. [100]
3. [101]
4. [102]
5. [103]
6. [104]
7. [105]
8. [106]
9. [107] bobrayner (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

:Zfigueroa do exactly the same.. And he won't discuss before edit, I have asked him multiple times.--Communist-USSR (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Zfigueroa has been a bit free with the revert button too, but is mostly adding new content, which you automatically revert. That is not good. I would have considered just letting this slide and trying to explain the concept of editwarring, but since you accused me of editwarring simply for making two edits reintroducing sourced content written by zfigueroa, whilst you continued to automatically revert everything - at least nine distinct reverts in under 12 hours, I may have missed a few - I think it's pretty clear that merely citing a policy again will not stop the disruptive editing. bobrayner (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

There are similar problems on other articles. For instance, over at RT (TV network): [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115]. bobrayner (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't automatically revert, he keeps adding the same information and won't discuss before add it. You are reverting my revert before discussing and you said you even didn't know what the problem was. About RT: I revert vandalising edits which keep reverting info. I am not the only one who has reverted these things. But the word "propaganda" keeps getting added. The source does not use the word "propaganda" with the indicated meaning; nascent RT as being such an outfit is disputed.--Communist-USSR (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Zfigueroa

here even said he won't discuss what wasn't discussed before.--Communist-USSR (talk

) 21:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

So you revert again. Even if we aggregate dozens of consecutive edits, you've made at least ten reverts in half a day on this article and more on other articles, despite multiple warnings, whilst arguing about it at the edit-warring noticeboard and accusing others of editwarrring. bobrayner (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Because he wouldn't discuss it despite 4 requests.--Communist-USSR (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

It does appear that there is some editwarring going on with both sides of this dispute. At the heart seems to be largely dispute between sources of disputed reliability and primary sources that contradict them (notably a twitter account that does not contain a message reported in some media of disputed reliability). Considering that the ownership of most media by conservative supporters has been an ongoing dispute in Venezuela since the original assumption of power of the socialist government there is risk of unreliable media sources being used to insert violations of

WP:NPOV I'd suggest admin attention, partial protection, and a referral to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard but would recommend against blocking parties from either side unless the decision is to block users from both sides. Simonm223 (talk

) 21:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Spreading blocks all round may not be the best approach. Zfigueroa didn't make any more reverts after I warned them, so blocking regardless would be rather

bitey. but Communist-USSR kept on hammering the revert button after being warned. Protecting 2014 Venezuelan protests would make that article more stable (of course the Wrong Version will be protected :-), but Communist-USSR has edit-warred on other pages - and has previously been warned about that too. bobrayner (talk

) 23:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

If nobody make anymore revert, how I can make them...--Communist-USSR (talk) 09:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

In any case, I think that the user Communist-USSR should rename his account (in case anyone forgot it, USSR is the

) 14:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I hardly see how that is relevant. Or any of our business. Simonm223 (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It is a remark such as was made by Cambalachero that gives WIKI the image of being the domain of a few rather than the group. That user should apologize for the irrelevant and demeaning comment. If these types of comments are not addressed then just what civility is it to be expected?SharpQuillPen (talk) 09:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Why is it demeaning? We have a

WP:UAA is thataway), but to suggest that identifying a real problem is giving Wikipedia a "bad image" is useless rhetoric, and plain wrong. We usually get accused of avoiding real problems DP

09:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You have taken it upon yourself to claim that the name is offensive. Why is it offensive to you. If someone has the user name Russia-Whites are you going to claim that this is as well offensive? It merely indicates some point in history. Just because the USSR was communistic is not offensive just as the US is not offensive if someone uses US-Confederation. Your words without support are just meant to inflame the situation. That is why they are demeaning. This action is not about the users name. Support your argument, the one that brought this issue to the fore, not by demeaning others. That is why an apology should be forthcoming.76.170.88.72 (talk) 09:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I've seen people with usernames that make specific reference to a pro-capitalist stance. That could just as easily be offensive to some members of our community. This isn't Conservapedia and it is supposed to be open and available to people regardless of their political inclinations.Simonm223 (talk) 14:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Page: Imran Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ibrar72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 30 Aug 2013

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15 Feb 2014
2. 15 Feb 2014
3. 15 Feb 2014
4. 15 Feb 2014
5. 22 Feb 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Persistently changing dob in a BLP article, that is already sourced from a reliable source. Ibrar72 was asked to participate in the discussion on talk page but he didn't. -- SMS ^Talk 15:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one month. I suggest you look at some of the other articles this user has either changed or added a DOB with no supporting source. These edits are more serious than the slow edit war.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [116]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [117]
2. [118]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [119]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [120]

Comments:

The user claims to be the target of personal attacks. I do question the neutrality of this user and I pointed to a precedent where content was removed despite an ongoing discussion.

The user requests help from the administrators to block my edits.

) 16:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Warned. There's no violation by Mthinkcpp. To the extent anyone has edit-warred, it is 84.127.80.114, and that was a few days ago, for which they were properly warned by James, who also went to the trouble of explaining at great length how the policy works. As far as I can tell, 84 has no consensus for the changes they wish to make to the article. If they persist in being disruptive in the article, they risk being blocked without any further notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Consensus was reached for the last changes I did. Besides, I marked that the sections are disputed, which obviously are. Is Bbb23 stating that these sections are not disputed? Does Bbb23 find mthinkcpp's refusal to talk an acceptable behavior? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Page: Edward Snowden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bdell555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [121]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• [122] 15:08, February 20, 2014. "An anonymous Pentagon official told BuzzFeed..." New addition. Not a revert.
• [123] 00:33, February 21, 2014. "An anonymous Pentagon official told BuzzFeed..."

1. [124] 07:56, February 22, 2014. "An anonymous Pentagon official told BuzzFeed..."
2. [125] 08:13, February 22, 2014. "An anonymous Pentagon official told BuzzFeed..."
3. [126] 08:20, February 22, 2014. "An anonymous Pentagon official told BuzzFeed..."

   [127] 18:05, February 22, 2014. Adds "Kucherena had also expressed his concern for Snowden's safety the previous August." New addition. Not a revert.

4. [128] 00:45, February 23, 2014. "Kucherena had also expressed his concern for Snowden's safety the previous August."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [129] 01:40, February 21, 2014
[130] 08:28, February 22, 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [131]

Comments:

Bdell555 is quite active at the Snowden biography; he has been reverting various editors steadily for months, along with adding new material. In the last month he made 50 edits. He discusses issues on the talk page, but he does not wait until consensus emerges before making more changes to the article. The series of four reversions shown above is preceded by two edits, one where Bdell555 creates new text, another where he reverts to his preferred version, then three more reversions to his preferred version. Another edit is shown where he adds new text, then the fourth reversion within 24 hours is his restoration of his preferred version. Binksternet (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, no it isn't, since what you call #4 is not in any part a reversion to or "restoration of" #1, #2, or #3. I'd add that nothing in edit #4 has ever been disputed on the Talk page, my justification for it just sitting there unresponded to while you revert it without any Talk page response to me. One could argue that the fact you have been edit warring over #4 implies your opposition to all elements of #4, but given your well chronicled habit of reverting me without even looking at the content you are reverting, it's entirely possible you have no objection to the elements of your reversion that your edit summaries never address. Now no doubt someone somehow will find a technical violation here regardless (I see now the possibility of my being prosecuted over a single letter: my removing an "s" from "Pentagon official" in accordance with the fact that the source cited never refers to more than one Pentagon official) and see fit to educate me as to the finer points of 3RR, to which I say in advance I stand corrected. I would just refer this admonisher to what I have to say about this attitude on my user page, and ask Binksternet why he can't find the time to engage on the article Talk page but can find the time to put this little presentation together (complete with a "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" that is conveniently left undated since it would predate no less than 10 Talk page comments that I have made since that time. On the rare occasion when you have made one of your fleeting appearances on the Talk page, Binksternet, you've been known to make a comment that reveals that you never bothered to read the thread! It was only after repeatedly requesting on your user Talk page your participation on the article Talk page that you were inclined to engage even on that cursory level! When I once replied to you, Binksternet, to say that "I'm seeing a refusal to engage here on this Talk page," recall that another editor promptly followed up my comment to say "I agree wholeheartedly with Brian in this case. This is an excellent example of

WP:IDHT. We must be able to engage in our fellow editors' arguments if we are to edit productively on contentious subjects." Have you come here expecting an endorsement of this refusal to engage?--Brian Dell (talk

) 07:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

(reminder: as per

WP:EW, " an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period") DP

11:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "Add Disney films to Columbia Pictures film library"
2. 07:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "Columbia Pictures released Disney films since 1937"
3. 07:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "Columbia Pictures is the first Disney Distributor"
4. 07:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC) ""
5. 07:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC) ""
6. 06:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC) ""
7. 06:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC) ""
8. 06:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Warned by User:Geraldo Perez and User:Crboyer, this IP is linked to a known vandal as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

This is block evasion by 139.194.86.250 (talk · contribs), who is currently serving a 10-day block for the same sort of edits. Deor (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• We may want a range block, but it looks to my barely-trained eye like it would have to be a very big one. The IPs are Indonesian, but I don't know if that helps with finding any history on the person behind these. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 10 days for block evasion, as well as the underlying problems with the edits themselves.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "Reverting as the administrators are deleting essential portions without reading or studying the content."
2. 14:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "Added citation needed tag as there is dispute."
3. 13:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "Reverted as the essential part got deleted."
4. 10:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Kerala */ Other than Nampoothiris, there are so many Brahmin castes in Kerala. So many references are available. You may make a search. But, recent references will be practically difficult as now a days no body in Kerala writes about the Caste System."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Reverted by 3 different editors

) 14:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

Mar4d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 596772729 by
   TW
   )"
2. 13:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 596772253 by
   TW
   )"
3. 13:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 596618382 by
   TW
   )"
4. 10:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC) "rmv distortion of old sentence and disputable fact"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Content removal */ new section"

Comments:

Mar4d is removing a well sourced, and well known fact that the Taliban originated in Pakistan, the line itself has been in the article since at least 30 January 2014, as such that edit has consensus, and Mar4d is obviously not interested in using the talk page to get consensus Darkness Shines (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

BTW, see here for consensus on the whole Taliban/Pakistan mess. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:3RR, for a series of edits to be considered an edit war, there must be 3 reverts in 24 hours. This legitimate removal of unsourced info that was added without consensus is not related to the edit war nor made on the same date. The edit war was started by DS, as seen in his first revert here where legitimately-removed and unsourced content was reinserted without consensus. Darkness Shines made 2 more reverts here and [132] (where rollback was also abused) so he is on 3RR. A talk page warning was also given. I have not crossed 3RR, but if an admin deems it as such, I can make the necessary adjustment. Darkness Shines must use the talk page and bring consensus for the article as sanctions can be applied on contentious edits to this article per a lengthy

) 14:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a fascinating interpretation of the policy. First, a violation of 3RR requires at least four reverts in a 24-hour window. Second, the edit you pick on was a revert. There is no exemption for your removal. That said, ironically, you did not violate 3RR because the four reverts were not within 24 hours. The first ended at 10:58 on February 22, and the last was at 14:05 on February 23.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

My bad, typo there. Yes, there are to be 4 reverts within a 24 hour time-frame for it to be considered crossing 3rr. And as the time stamp shows, there are not 4 reverts in 24 hours hence no 3RR. My first edit is not related and as the diffs show, the edit war was started by DS, who incidentally is sitting on 3RR btw. Mar4d (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The policy definition of a revert includes edits that are "unrelated". Both of you have edit warred. Your conduct, frankly, has been worse because you have made four reverts, regardless of the fact that the last occurred outside the 24-hour window. Nor do I think it's constructive to say that DS "started" the battle. I'm not delving into the previous discussions of the issue, but from what I can see, DS at least had a good-faith belief that your edit was against consensus. In any event, who "started" it sounds like something children say when they go to their parents for adjudication of a spat. One common parental response is, "I don't care who started it. I'm going to finish it." Think of me as the parent, although at this juncture I don't intend to take any action. I would just hope that content discussion will take the place of sniping.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Page

User being reported

B. Fairbairn (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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User was blocked for removing images appropriate to international relations from multiple pages. Editor has returned to doing so again. Editor is also making policy or guideline decisions such as Image depicting violence inappropriate. This is a large-scale edit war across multiple articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

On several of the page edits made today, others objected immediately. I removed a few others to leave in a pre-edit state until this dispute is resolved. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

See

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive827#User:B._Fairbairn
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive259#User:B._Fairbairn_again, possibly part of the reason blocked.
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive235#User:B._Fairbairn_reported_by_User:Walter_G.C3.B6rlitz_.28Result:_Blocked.29, which is where the editor was blocked for 48 hours.

That was more than two weeks ago. The editor took a break, made the dozen or so edits reported here, and then came to my talk page and told me to try to get over it after they were completed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: Pre edit war stable diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• First Revert (Section blanking) 02:48, 23 February 2014
• Second revert 12:18 and 12:20, 23 February 2014
• Third revert 12:28 and 12:32, 23 February 2014
• Fourth revert 12:50 and 12:53, 23 February 2014

>>>>> 3RR warning at user's talk page 13:37, 23 February 2014‎

• Fifth revert 13:53, 23 February 2014

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

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Haven't bothered, obvious POV vandalism
• Diff of notice about this complaint is here

Comments:

) 19:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Mifter (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Hey,
  NewsAndEventsGuy, I like your report presentation, particularly the edit warring warning in the same list as the reverts. My only "complaint" is it would be better to use UTC.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 21:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk

) 21:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: Turdunamaki (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]

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

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

Comments:

This user a sockpupput of

) 01:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Page

Sami Jauhojärvi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Le Grand Bleu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC) "Go to talk page if you want to explain your vandalism."
2. 23:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC) "Vandalism."
3. 03:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "Still waiting for explanations on talk page. Until then you two are vandals removing sourced info."
4. 06:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "Yet another vandal, removing sourced information without proper discussion."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   "

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 04:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "/* NPOV */ new section"

Comments:

Multiple editors reverted NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I've asked ALL participants to go to talk page and explain WHY they're reverting my perfectly legitimate edit. The edit war instigator was a Finnish administrator Prolog who is in a conflict of interest since the article is about a Finnish Olympic athlete. I've asked him in the edit summary, I asked him on his page to stop the war and go to the talk page. I got no response other than threats of blocking. Same from NeilN - without any explanation he reverted my edit and went to complain here. MAYBE I'm wrong but isn't it more productive (and less time consuming) to go to the article's talk page and have a... talk? When done by an administrator, say, Prolog, it might even set a positive trend. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 06:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

You are reverting three different editors, classifying them as vandals. Clear edit summaries were provided and talk page discussion was opened. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit summaries are not for discussing opinions. The talk page discussion was opened barely 20 minutes ago while the edit war started yesterday. People who remove legitimate information or add rubbish are called vandals. Even if there are three of them, they still are just that - vandals. Threats of blocking by an administrator to another user in a situation of conflict of interest is severe abuse of administrator's rights. Are you ready to call off the war and start talking now? Le Grand Bleu (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Get

consensus for your addition as you don't have it so far. Until then, leave the contentious material out. You might want to cool off a bit more as your edits still echo of this. --NeilN ^{talk to me}

06:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

No. It's not contentious material. It's sourced information included in another article where it was not contended. It's bare facts, nothing else as explained on the talk page. If you don't like it, that's YOUR problem. So far I haven't seen ONE good reason why it shouldn't be included. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 06:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Fifth revert on a BLP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

NeilN chose to continue the war instead of having a proper discussion and listening to the opponent. I'm leaving this up to the admins. I refuse to deal with bullies. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 06:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I've protected the page due to the edit war, and recommend that all the involved editors discuss the article on the talk page in the intervening 4 days to reach a consensus. I would also like to remind everyone to stay

Personal Attacks, vandalism is by definition a deliberate attempt to undermine Wikipedia, good faith edits (even in an edit war) are generally not vandalism and accusations such as that undermine discussion and make reaching a productive consensus considerably harder. Best, Mifter (talk

) 07:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I suppose reverting good faith and sourced edits just because someone doesn't like it doesn't undermine the discussion? Not going to talk to these two. They are hostile, selfish, counter productive and generally detrimental to WP. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 09:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

One would think Le Grand Bleu is speaking of himself. He has been calling other editors vandals, and he is the one edit-warring (he's been reverted by four other editors), he is the one refusing to discuss (see above), nonetheless he calls for people stop making ad hominem attacks, stop edit-warring, and start discussing, he is hostile, selfish, etc. I welcome anyone that might stray here to check LGB's contributions, especially to this discussions. Black is white, and white is black, it seems. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Update: I checked LGB's alternative account, BadaBoom, and it appears that he is Russian. Considering that he has accused one of the reverting editors, User:Prolog (who is Finnish), for having a conflict of interest (Jauhojärvi is also Finnish), it's no big surprise to note that the silver medalist in the race involving the controversy, and who was also affected by Jauyhojärvi's infraction, is – you guessed it – Russian. Fits the pattern above: LGB accuses others of doing exactly what he does himself. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

LGB's block log on the Russian Wikipedia is quite telling; edit warring, disruptive editing, incivility and personal attacks. Prolog (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Given that there was a 3-1 consensus that LGB's edits were inappropriate, I think it would have been preferable to just deal with the problem editor. Someone might want to properly expand the article now while cross-country skiing and the Olympics are still in the news, and it's unlikely that anyone will join LGB's cause as the competition in question happened four days ago. Prolog (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Did you just suggest that a consensus discussion is a plurality vote? DP 12:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Nope, I tried to suggest that a rough consensus formed regarding LGB's addition, with first arguments and then even the head count being against it, so the user must have known how bad form his/her last two reverts were. Prolog (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours As they have a history of undisclosed accounts, please let me know if any such accounts show up to make similar edits DP 12:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

  It would probably be prudent to keep an eye on BadaBoom, to see if that account becomes active again. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

  A request for information about other accounts from the guy who, when asked by Jimbo to give up his admin tools, starting multi accounting to evade that request and then obscured the relationship between his accounts to the maximum extent he could get away with.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

  Can't keep a good ursid down! --

  talk

  ) 21:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Page: Godfrey Bloom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 94.46.3.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [134]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [139] [140]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [141]

Comments:

Tiller54 (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours DP 01:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Pages: Petronilla of Aragon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Peter III of Aragon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Srnec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user Srnec violated the rule of three reversals. He started an edit war with me when he changed an image that had been there since 2011 in the article Peter III of Aragon. In total, he made five changes. Nobody realized this. So I present this complaint.

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

But this wasn't the first time. In the article Petronilla of Aragon, war started when I disapproved a change made ​​by he a few months ago and Srnec also violated the rule.

1. [147]
2. [148]
3. [149]
4. [150]

And I'm not the only person who had a discussion with him for his idea of put only images or things made during the life of the person in the "image" section. [151][152][153].--EeuHP (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

• You know this went stale a month ago, right? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• And even worse, this was presented just two days after your block expired for your actions on these very articles. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I could not report it before because I was locked one month. But the complaint is true, you can see the links. More of three reversals = violation of the rule. If no one made the complaint (as I asked) is my duty to do it.--EeuHP (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• EeuHP, you should just stop and start being actually helpful to this encyclopedia. --Lecen (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, we're not talking about me now. And I haven't done anything wrong. I have returned the article to the previous version, before the discussion, and I have opened a space on the Talk Page to discuss and reach consensus. Nothing more. If that's bad, I don't know what is to be useful.--EeuHP (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Stale This is more stale than the slice of bread I found under the stove - and just as mouldy.
  WP:DR. Please do not waste this board's time by posting month-old issues - this board is intend to stop current incidents of 3RR and EW violations DP
  00:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. He did the same things than I.

I was punished and he was free.

Nobody wanted present the complaint when I asked.

Now, I put the complaint but... is too old.

Sorry, but I can't accept this arbitrariness.--EeuHP (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

This board is here to stop CURRENT edit-wars and 3RR violations, not some old grudge where you're also as bad as the other person. I can block you both if you'd like. DP 01:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Page

Arya (actor) (edit | 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. 03:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "/* As actor */ no source no matter how reliable can verify an event as happening in the future"
2. Consecutive edits made from 21:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC) to 23:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
   1. 21:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 596803697 by
      WP:BURDEN
      "
   2. 23:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "/* As actor */ replacement of same sources that dont appropriately verify claims
      WP:BURDEN
      the subject cannot be the one verifying state of project due to COI"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

He keeps removing well-sourced content about upcoming events, due to his obsession with

) 05:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• No violation here - Consecutive edits count as one, and there's only three lots. Removing unreferenced/poorly referenced information from a BLP is also an exemption from 3RR. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Luke, how do you explain his wars with users

Sriram Vikram and all? Kailash29792 (talk

) 09:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• If we're talking about this article, then there is no 3RR violation, or even close. Two of those three editors had no involvement with the article you've linked to. Editor 2050 has tried to add poorly sourced, partially sourced, or completely unsourced information, some of which is OR; neither
  WP:COMMONSENSE does not make including guesses a valid thing to do, least of all in a BLP. TRPOD should be commended for their fight against BLP violations (which adding improperly sourced information into a BLP classifies as), not dragged to AN3 for a clearly invalid case. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here)
  12:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I can verify that he has started an edit war on Zombie, calling a serious phobia a "joke."

Curiouscrab0 | talk | contribs

23:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see [154] for

WP:MEDRS. TRPOD's talk page may be filled with complaints, but the other editors lack clue about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --NeilN ^{talk to me}

23:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Looking at the first diff cited by Kailash, TRPOD was removing claims from a BLP that weren't supported by the cited references. TRPOD's edits were therefore completely appropriate. The material removed was essentially speculation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• No violation DP 23:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

All right, forget his article edits. But he has been fighting with many experienced editors such as those I mentioned here for seemingly no reason, especially

Krimuk90 — who is an excellent editor, having written many GA's and three FA's in the past few years. Kailash29792 (talk

) 04:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Editors are allowed to disagree with other. If Krimuk90 thinks TRPOD's are disruptive, he knows what avenues to follow. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [155]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [156]
2. [157]
3. [158]
4. [159]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [160]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [161]

Comments:
This user is reverting, despite being invited into a discussion on the talk page. He has clearly breached 3rr now and has deleted my warning asking him not to revert any more. Cassianto (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll comment that this user has been blocked for edit warring before (Sept 2013). Those notifications and warnings were also deleted from his talk page at the time.

talk

) 19:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• In lieu of blocking 3 different people who are horrifically
  edit-warring (Schro, Cass, Stranger), Page protected DP
  23:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • SchroCat and I were not warring. FYI, the reverts from SchroCat were in line with
    WP:BRD, but the instigator was clearly ignoring the 'discuss' part of it. Someone in your position should be able to tell the difference between that and warring, or maybe this is the norm around here? Cassianto (talk
    ) 10:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

OMICS Creations

• OMICS Creations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
  

Some group editors doing syndicate editing ande redirecting films and movies page

) 07:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done

WP:RFPP is for protection. Forum-shopping rarely works around here - this board has a specific purpose, and the above is not the purpose DP

10:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Pages: Petronilla of Aragon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Peter III of Aragon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Srnec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user Srnec violated the rule of three reversals. He started an edit war with me when he changed an image that had been there since 2011 in the article Peter III of Aragon. In total, he made five changes. Nobody realized this. So I present this complaint.

1. [162]
2. [163]
3. [164]
4. [165]
5. [166]

But this wasn't the first time. In the article Petronilla of Aragon, war started when I disapproved a change made ​​by he a few months ago and Srnec also violated the rule.

1. [167]
2. [168]
3. [169]
4. [170]

And I'm not the only person who had a discussion with him for his idea of put only images or things made during the life of the person in the "image" section. [171][172][173].

And in the rules don't say that the infractions have date of expire.--EeuHP (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• This is becoming disruptive. See
  WP:ANI and my talkpage. Stop already. Forum-shopping in unacceptable, as is your personal edit warring DP
  01:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Closing this as stale. We don't block punitively for month-old disputes, end of story. Please don't report this again. It won't do you any good and will eventually (if not already) be viewed as disruption. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Two serious violations that cost me me a month and a week lockout ... invalidated by time.

Do you know? During the Civil War, a Republican lawyer disappeared, two months later, he was found dead. He had been dead since the day he disappeared. After the war, his wife went to ask the widow's pension, but the ministry said no. Why? Because her husband had been expelled from his union because he had not paid the fees. What fees? The fees of the months that had been missing. She said he was dead then, but nothing.

Your logic is the same. Two clear violations go unpunished again. Applause.--EeuHP (talk) 10:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Your logic is ridiculous - probably in part because you believe blocks are PUNISHMENT for transgressions, which they're not. As you've been told more than once, a block is a PREVENTATIVE measure. Your combative beliefs will not last long, I'm afraid, if you keep them up DP 10:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Page

Parineeti Chopra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Mohit Kumar Tripathi (Magic Mohit) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 18:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 06:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC) "General note: Adding spam links on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continuously adds www.parineetichopra.net to the article, even though it is clearly a fan site and not the actress' official site. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Result: User:Mohit Kumar Tripathi (Magic Mohit) is warned that they may be blocked if they restore the link again, before getting consensus on the talk page. So far they've only made three reverts in 24 hours, but at this point the behavior needs to stop. EdJohnston (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Page: Abbas Babaei (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 70.50.217.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [174]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [175]
2. [176]
3. [177]
4. [178]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [179]
2. [180]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [181]

Comments:

The user; 70.50.217.198 is adding content to the article of Abbas Babaei which is deemed inappropriate for his article. The user is using strong opnion based passages from a book that label Mr. Abbas Babaei as "notorious" and "merciless" the user 70.50.217.198 claims this to be "factual" yet it is extremely objective and opinion based. Mr Abbas Babaei (of whom the article is written about) was killed roughly 25 years ago during the Iran-Iraq war he is considered a hero by many and deeply respected by many. His family is still alive including his wife, sons, and daughter. Such as passage as the one by 70.50.217.198 is not appropriate in the article of someone who has lived in the very recent past.
Additionally the user 70.50.217.198 has acted very impulsively and in an improper manner for a Wikipedia editor to do so. He has also added comments that reek of racism or annoyance based on my beliefs. This can be seen on ym talk page where at the end of his post to me he say ALLAHU AKBAER, this comment of his has hurt me and reeks of religious intolerance towards me.
I therefore request the user 70.50.217.198 be blocked from further engaging in Wikipedia or its articles.
Thank you,
Hooperag (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) By my lazy counting, Hooperag is at 7RR over a maximum of 48 hours, and the IP is just as bad if not worse. Suggest blocking both and semi-protecting the article for a few weeks, and I will ask the milhist project to opine on the extent to which the book should be used as a source here and/or supports any of the statements made. --

talk

) 22:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

This would be a good time for either party to promise to stop warring. In this way they might be able to avoid a block. Hooperag is trying to restore glorious patriotic verbiage to the article, such as "He is considered as a great martyr within Iran for his unending sacrifices and contributions during the

Iran-Iraq War." The IP, while removing the inappropriate material, is adding a negative claim about the subject of the article that would require a very good reference ("notorious" and "merciless"). EdJohnston (talk

) 23:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I have stopped warring, and will not engage in further conflict with the IP address. I have been a Wikipedia editor since 2009 and have built up a decent reputation. In fact as of yesterday I stopped warring, and will not do so again in the future. Must I point out though that that IP address was blocked a few days ago for similar behavior and I do caution Wikipedia to watch the IP address and recognize that the IP address is behaving aggressively. I agree with Demiurge1000, the article should be semi protected for a few days until things calm down.
I apologize for aggressive behavior committed by me, and pledge to abide by Wikipedia's guidelines from now on. Hooperag (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm the IP and I'd like to put Hooperag's sanctimonious contribution in perspective. My addition to the article is by Tom Cooper, one the foremost western (meaning non-biased) experts on the Iran-Iraq air war. The quoted text comes directly from his contribution to the excellent and voluminous Osprey book series: Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat by Tom Cooper & Farzad Bishop, 2004, Oxford: Osprey Publishing, p. 23,

) 00:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Page protected – One week. Use the talk page to get agreement on the disputed items. If the war resumes after that, blocks are possible. EdJohnston (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

What... do you expect them to issue an arrest warrant for me? It's one thing if you have a problem with my edits, but what's your problem with me?
Hooperag (talk) 02:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

What about the plagiarism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.217.198 (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I have submitted a proposal on the articles talk page to resolve the issue, my proposal can be seen in the following link [[182]], I hope the issue is resolved.
Hooperag (talk) 03:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Page: Seoul Metropolitan Subway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 15:59, 23 February 2014

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revision as of 22:17, 23 February 2014
2. Revision as of 22:38, 23 February 2014
3. Revision as of 23:24, 23 February 2014
4. Revision as of 23:45, 24 February 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: at 23:42, 23 February 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [183]

Yes - User:BsBsBs did attempt to resolve this issue at the Talk page of Seoul Metropolitan Subway.

Note: That I am an interested third-party, not directly involved in this current Edit War.

Comments:

The edit at Seoul Metropolitan Subway was reverted a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot. The user is gaming the system, especially considering that, at 03:04, 24 February 2014, three hours after the third revert, the editor had declared his intent to continue the edit war.

Previous to this edit warring, the account

• Massyparcer received an edit warring warning by an admin a just 5 days into the account existence
• The user received a temporary block for edit warring at List of metro systems. (Please see: [184]).
• The account is a
  Single Purpose Account, dedicated to portray the Seoul Metropolitan Subway as the world's greatest. See: contribution log.

Thank you for your attention in this matter. --IJBall (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: I was about to file a report against this user as well based on IJBall's and BsBsBs's evidence (also as an uninvolved editor). Epicgenius (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Well Epicgenius is an involved editor who has just reverted without giving any edit summaries. User:BsBsBs has not attempted to resolve this issue - He only posted inappropriate content on the talk page which were irrelevant to the issue at hand. Admin User:BrownHairedGirl has already punished BsBsBs and me for edit warring to a 1RR on her talk page, so this is just recycled stuff. Also, I have no interest in portraying anything in any light and simply wish this encyclopedia to reflect the truth. If anything User:BsBsBs could be accused of the same trait if you look at that editor's contributions. Massyparcer (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The only way in which I was involved is in the sense that I was the text's original writer. Epicgenius (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Not true. You are the one who reverted it in the latest revert: [185] Massyparcer (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I was reverting to the version beforehand because it had one source. Epicgenius (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

That source merely introduced Korail and had nothing to do with your claim of right-hand, left-hand track. You quoted Wikipedia articles as a source, which you shouldn't be doing as they're considered unreliable. Massyparcer (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Then how come it was on Korean Wikipedia? Epicgenius (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The Korean Wiki articles you quoted have no sources to begin with. Massyparcer (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, admin User:BrownHairedGirl has already punished BsBsBs and me for edit warring to a 1RR on her talk page, so this is nothing new. Massyparcer (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

No, you were not punished. You were both warned that in future you would both be held to a

WP:1RR rule. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs

) 19:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Wait a minute. I'm pretty sure you said "From now on you are one a 1-revert rule" - Which means you didn't just warn but already applied both me and BsBsBs to 1RR. Massyparcer (talk) 12:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Update: And now reverted for a 5th time (diff: [186]).

Which is outside the 24 hour slot so doesn't even count if you haven't read

WP:3RR. Massyparcer (talk

) 15:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be 24 hours. Even if the reverts are over a year apart, it's still a revert. Epicgenius (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I hope you know that this is about 3RR violations and not about any old reverts. Massyparcer (talk) 12:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I hope you know that

WP:EW certainly can be about old reverts. For example, if someone tries to make the same edit once a month every month, that's long-term edit-warring and can lead to a block. ES&L

12:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I see. Just for your information, the revert he is talking about is about a new one made after the 4th revert. The fourth one was outside the 24 hour slot, although I suppose close enough for people to claim that I'm "gaming" the rules. User:BsBsBs has kindly resolved this issue by removing Epicgenius' unsourced claims, so I consider this settled at this point. Massyparcer (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Page: Talk:Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Boris Godunov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [187]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [188]
2. [189]
3. [190]
4. [191]
5. [192]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [193]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [194]

Comments:
An user, initially under IP:109.245.105.8, then with his real name Boris Godunov entered a huge amount of primary or outdated, predominantly Serbian sources on the talk page of the article Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia. They were totally useless or/and biased and this addition was neither logical, nor provoked by action from another user, or helpful to the discussion. I have removed it and advised the User to stop this nonsense, however he began an edit-war and abused me here without reason. Jingiby (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

This is not noncence or "usefull"!!!, this is valid documents which have role to help someone who wants to wright more about this article! So there is no reason to deleted it based on figure that someone which are from Bulgaria is not satisfied on valid international historical documents , which obviously are not "serbian" as this user whant to say. Thank you. His personal problems with obvious historical facts should not be relevant for enyclopedia.--Boris Godunov (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC) Anyway see his user page! Everyrthing will be obvious by photo there.

Page

Oz the Great and Powerful (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2001:558:6025:32:8103:2990:EE5A:B96C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 596452943 by Quenhitran (talk)"
2. 09:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 597198989 by Quenhitran (talk)"
3. 11:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 597201431 by Tickle192 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on
   TW
   )"
2. 11:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing. (
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 09:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Monaural to stereo and eventually surround sound */"

Comments:

Repeatedly revert to an old revision of the article which is being discussed. The user also made many unconstructive edits in other articles and ignore warnings (see his/her contributions). Quenhitran (talk) 12:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• talk
  ) 14:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Page: High Point University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ncnative556 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Essentially the user being reported is repeatedly deleting factual information from a national publication (shown in the links below), and adding substantial promotional and "fawning" (as defined in wiki help pages) material that is not appropriate to a factual article. (The material being added is not so much shown in the links below, but can be seen on the article history in question.) Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [195] on 7 Nov 2013
2. [196] on 10 Feb 2014
3. [197] on 10 Feb 2014
4. [198] on 21 Feb 2014
5. [199] on 25 Feb 2014

I adjusted the deletions above with these edits and comments:

1. [200] on 10 Jan 2014
2. [201] on 17 Feb 2014
3. [202] on 21 Feb 2014
4. [203] on 25 Feb 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [204]

Comments:

My concerns as to the posts and deletions of Ncnative556 are as I outlined on his/her talk page: there is a repeated process of adding fawning information and deleting less favorable but factual items which has the effect of making the article promotional and biased in favor of the subject, which is outside the scope of a reasonable wiki-style article. Editor has not responded to any requests to discuss, and continues the pattern of deleting critical material while adding fawning detail.

KnowledgeisGood88 (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Both warned. If User:Ncnative556 and User:KnowledgeisGood88 continue to revert one another without ever using the article talk page both are risking a block. The use of edit summaries is not a substitute for discussion, especially when you're reverting the other party. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Page: List of A Town Where You Live chapters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 210.195.81.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_A_Town_Where_You_Live_chapters&diff=597280415&oldid=594511875

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [205]
2. [206]
3. [207]

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

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

Comments:
The user at IP:210.195.81.131 has posted release date for volume 27 without a URL. When I reverted the information multiple times, and replaced it with a proper source, he called me "retarded, dumb or just plain ignorant" and "stubborn" [209] and reverted the information again. This abuse has go to stop. -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: Movieking007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [210]
2. [211]
3. [212]
4. [213]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [214]

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:OMICS Creations and [215]

Comments:

• In addition to the edit-warring, WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Scholarscentral‎ is relevant (where oh where is a checkuser??). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Some group of editors doing syndicate editing and redirecting films and movies page

) 14:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC) [216] [217] [218] [219] [220] Please investigate Movieking007 (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Bishonen | talk 16:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Addendum: now indefblocked for abusing multiple accounts. Bishonen | talk 16:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC).

Page

Rosen Method Bodywork (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

)

Comments:

This is ridiculous.

) 15:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

This notice should boomerang back to Etolpygo. Binksternet (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• No violation. Purely retaliatory filing, compare [221] above. Boomerang: I'll be giving Etolpygo 48 hours above in a minute. Bishonen | talk 16:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC).

Page: Rosen Method Bodywork (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Etolpygo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [222]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [223]
2. [224]
3. [225]
4. [226]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [227][228] (Previously exceeded 3RR, let it slide.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [229]

Comments:

• The reported editor is attempting dispute resolution, but has continued to revert since doing so. I'm the current DRN coordinator and have made an initial evaluation of the filing there and it will likely move forward if the other participants in the dispute choose to join in. I'm neither recommending nor implying any recommendation for any course of action here, just providing an update on the circumstances. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• The reported editor took this issue to dispute resolution without ever making an effort to discuss on the talk page. Furthermore there are at least four other active editors who have tried to engage with this editor previously without much success. Simonm223 (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• User is edit-warring a POV into the article (while also having opened a case at DRN[230]). Has also filed a specious (IMO) complaint against me below.
  COI
  15:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. There's a little extra there, because of the frivolous retaliatory filing below. Bishonen | talk 16:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [231]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [232]
2. [233]
3. [234]
4. [235]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [236]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [237]

Comments: While a relatively new user should be cut a considerable amount of slack, Rahibsaleem has reverted three different editors who removed his addition from the article lede, made personal attacks on the article talk page and in edit summaries ("User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz seems prejudiced against the Arabic language"; "removed malicious edits by Malik Shabazz"), removed warnings from his talk page, then posted them on Malik Shabazz's, including content that plainly had no relevance to MS ([238], [239]), and generally shown no willingness to edit collegially ("Malik_Shabazz this is your last warning: admins shall intervene upon the edit warring you started. This edit cannot be deleted." [240]) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours for 3RR violation (four reverts at Jews on 27 February). EdJohnston (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Recently I created the List of Wagon Train episodes page. Afterwards I placed a peer review request on the talk page. One editor, Eclecticology added a guest star column to season one only. I do not think the article should have this. I prefer to have the list similar to such Featured lists as M*A*S*H, Smallville , Grey's Anatomy, and The X-Files. Eclecticology sent the following message too me:

I disagree with your POV that key actors should not be included in episode lists. What has been done in the other articles that you cite is irrelevant to what happens on the Wagon Train. Adding this information is clearly useful since people watching these episodes will certainly be curious about where they have seen a particular actor before. Many of the TV productions from the time period of Wagon Train employed actors that were well known for other roles. Indeed, only one of those that I added had a red link. As for the role of IMDb, your opinion that it is unreliable does not translate broadly into making its information unusable in all circumstances. Some kinds of information on that site, particularly lists of credited cast taken from the presentations themselves, are generally reliable. I expect that you will stop making these "undue" changes to my edits. You do not own the article.

No, I do not own the article; neither does Eclecticology. Wagon Train did indeed have high-profile guest stars but we are talking about a series that ran for eight seasons and aired a total of 285 episodes. I feel that adding this extra column will add too much to an article that is already quite long. Also I feel that guest stars should be added to future articles that would be devoted to one season each (i.e. Wagon Train (season one), Wagon Train (season two), etc.). However, each time I undue Eclecticology's changes he (or she) changes it back and adamantly states that his (or her) changes are right and rather brusquely berates me for being rude.

I think a third party needs to step in at this point. Can anyone help? Jimknut (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

One can always have someone point out just what is and just what is not WP policy but let us look at the fundamental issue.

Let us look at the fundamental justification of the reason for exclusion statement about an already existing article being too long. There has been a practice with WP that some articles that are perceived as too long should be broken into sections that better convey information for a particular point or effect. This is most evident with entertainment industry articles. There have been works of literature, songs, etc. that have been adapted into theatricals, then subsequently adapted into plays or movies. Do they all stay within the same article in WP? Of course not. Is information in an article about a particular entertainment production relegated to inclusion in WP within that originating article? Of, course not. Articles grow, split and divide into additional articles that they themselves grow, split and divide. There is a book from which an adaptation is made of a play or movie. If there is so much information about those subjects then it most probably gets divvied into that article which most appropriately should concern that aspect. Some entertainment industry articles are series because that is for what the information of that subject calls. A background actor certainly would be expected to be the subject of an entire article if their work was not sufficient for that purpose. Leave what information you have to a sentence in an article of that production. A noted actor certainly should have their life and career the subject of another article rather than leaving it to the production article. But if you never include information in an article merely because it is perceived as too long, then just where is it that the information will be included so that others are aware that maybe additional work needs to be done with that information? Some subjects in the entertainment industry field have an article on a series, articles on actors and crew, articles on particular projects that emerge through the creative process of a series. Is it a good idea to be put forth that information should be excluded because there is just too much? You say that you are not the owner of the article but do you recognize that by advocating the exclusion of information from the article very well controls what makes it into the article and WP? I am not saying that you are doing this surreptitiously but that is what is happening. WP does not encourage primary research yet it seems that a significant amount of information that we know about the films of the silent era come from those sources compiled by the entertainment industry in order for information to be known about their productions. Where else would besides primary records would this information be known? Only a fraction of that films were produced during the silent era exists and what published information from those sources deemed credible by WP is significantly smaller than what is available for the sound era. Wagon Train is a much different animal than the series' cited as an example of article content/style. I would venture to say that 99.99% of those people involved in the production of the Wagon Train are dead. The likelihood of publications by and about these people are very fleeting if people are not made aware of just who they are and what they have done.

Well, I guess there is always the possibility of developing the article on the Wagon Train totally devoid of any mention of there being a totally different article about the guest actors on the Wagon Train if Eclecticology decides to do so if left out in the cold? But is that treatment beneficial to WP? No one is compelling you to start the compilation of the actors on the Wagon Train whether the actor had lines or not. In fact, the Wagon Train would not be the Wagon Train without it's actors. And for that particular time period in the television industry who was a lead actor or a guest actor, or who was not selected as a lead actor or despite being a popular actor never guest acted on the series very well may show a subtlety about just what behind-the-scenes or personal influences there may or may not have been in that production. Considering the role that the entertainment industry has had on society, many people do not recognize just how nuanced their lives have been shaped. How many people when five years old recognized that the Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoon was their level of participation in the Cold War? Personally, it was all lost on me every time we as kids were subjected to Borsch for dinner but at least it was countered by those many times when my friend Gary in elementary school would hand over his Baklava as if it were a peanut butter and jelly sandwich--Oh my mom makes it all the time.76.170.88.72 (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

If your concern is more over how the message was worded then give me a shout and I'll direct you to some of the edit summaries that I have seen that are absolutely horrendous and inappropriate in a community that is voluntary. A quick look at the tables, just for the first season, would certainly show that if any where it would be there that those guest actors should be included. Linda Darnell, McDonald Carey, Dan Blocker etc. these are people on their own are remarkable people within the entertainment industry. Ask any person over the age of 50 who watched soap operas just who is MacDonald Carey and I would drop dead if they did not say that he was the head of the Horton Clan and considered such an icon of that industry that they still use his voice to introduce the show. His character children, character grandchildren and his character great-grandchildren have come and gone and his voice still lives on! If you are upset that the guy added the column only to the first year episode table, what does it take but a few minutes of cut and paste to finish it off. If there is a wiki policy to discourage guest star columns then maybe that policy should be reconsidered so that for those older shows (i.e. pre-1965ish) might have a different significance warranting a policy other than that of other television episodic guest acting appearances and thus dictate a different approach be considered. Hey, buddy. Cut your losses.A1Houseboy 20:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A1Houseboy (talk • contribs)

• Warned. Jimknut and Eclecticology, you both reverted three times, although the war is somewhat stale now. You are both warned that further disruption of the article may result in a block. Jimknut, next time read and follow the instructions on this page on how to file a report here.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Page: FRG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gandon64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FRG&diff=597301560&oldid=597112965

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FRG&diff=597119997&oldid=597112965
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FRG&diff=597141351&oldid=597124001
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FRG&diff=597161856&oldid=597143181
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FRG&diff=597301560&oldid=597268430

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gandon64&oldid=597304823 section "FRG again". (The Gandon64 Talk page was since edited, replacing my addition with a warning about me removing others' changes.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

.

Comments:

The substance of this issue is very simple: Gandon64 keeps adding the line below to the FRG article; the initialism "FRG" is not used in any article. This line has been inserted several times in the past, and others have deleted it, sometimes saying that they consider it spam.

• FRG™ - Free Radical Gasification, a multi-patented waste to syngas conversion process developed by Responsible Energy Inc.
• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [241]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22 Feb
2. 24 Feb
3. 27 Feb #1
4. 27 Feb #2
5. 27 Feb #3

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [242]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [243]

Comments:

• Please note that this is a BLP of the recently-retired President of India. The issue of dedicated controversy sections and the nature of what constitutes a controversy etc has been discussed before, eg: here, here, here, here and here. There are numerous other examples in the archives and the article was semi'd for a while due to some of these BLP violations. The contributor has been doing similar stuff at Kapil Sibal and, to be honest, seems to be nothing but aggressive wherever they go.

The article already contained some appropriately-place criticism, so the issue is not one of censorship but, as the prior discussions indicate, one of weight, recentism, relevance etc. - Sitush (talk) 10:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

They've just reverted again. - Sitush (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• WP:BLP compliant material, and considering this frivolous revenge templating.[244] Bishonen | talk
  13:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC).

User:Tokyogirl79

(Result: Blocked)

Page: Paul T T Easter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Housefullofcards (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [245]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [246]
2. [247]
3. [248]
4. [249]

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

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

Comments:
I think that this is likely the same IP editor (

07:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – Five days for edit warring. The user was previously blocked 31 hours for disruptive editing on 21 February. The Paul T T Easter article was semiprotected on 24 February. EdJohnston (talk) 14:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Page: Kathleen Wynne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Previous version reverted to: [256]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:20, 28 February 2014
2. 19:36, 28 February 2014
3. 20:09, 28 February 2014
4. 21:28, 28 February 2014
5. 21:46, 28 February 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 21:10, 28 February 2014

Comments:
Edit warring to add

) 21:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours by Paul Erik. Minima© (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 595754072 by
   TW
   )"
2. 05:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 597306620 by
   TW
   )"
3. 18:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 597329987 by JesseRafe: Look at this user's history, he is using CN tags maliciously to push an agenda, look at the Talk Pages, he isn't even consistent in what his claim his, he is harming the integrity of these articles with his..."
4. 18:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by
   TW
   )"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Discussion underway at

/ 18:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to note, I already blocked the editor after he reverted yet again before seeing that he had been reported here. SpinningSpark 18:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Great minds think alike, I suppose. I'd consider Spark's block dispositive of the 3RR report given it's based on the edit warring, myself. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

This user did not cross 3RR. But that is a meaningless line if it is a meaningless line. The other user, Serge is repeatedly adding tags in articles challenging that Geats is a valid English name, claiming it was coined in the 1980s. That is about as

WP:COMPETENT to use google, that the term predates the 1980s, as if that would make it "invalid" even if it had? And how many times does the 1837 usage need to be pointed out before other editors will HEARTHAT? This block is a bit excessive for a common sense response to disruption.Til Eulenspiegel /talk

/ 18:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I must say that I'm not to happy about being misrepresetned re: 1980s after having taken this very clear action on that subject. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

This is under discussion at the user's talk page. I admit in retrospect there was just over 24 hours between the first and fourth reverts, but that's besides the point as Spark issued a block for edit warring generally, and not a bright-line 3RR violation (though I have no doubt given JesseRafe's comments that he would have reverted a fifth time). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours by Spinningspark. Minima© (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Page

Samsung Galaxy S5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 03:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC) "logo fix, image removal due to questionable license"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Using multiple accounts on
   TW
   )"
2. 03:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"

Comments:

Only two reverts are listed, as the third is done under the username

) (which he had, according to his talk page, changed from for violating the username policy). He constantly removes the image from the article, arguing that we can't use it under fair use because the source listed allegedly did not have rights to the image.

He is also randomly tagging and removing other images from a Samsung Belgium Flickr profile which he thinks is flickrwashing based off a undisclosed "review", and literally removed an obviously user-created image for another Samsung article (as in, I don't think Samsung tablets ship with CyanogenMod by default) and requested OTRS. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Here are some of Samsung Belgium's deleted images [257], [258], and [259]. So basically its Vipersnake that is causing an edit war. Plus removal of the cyanogen mod on the screen must be done as this should have a seperate license just as the touchwiz and stock ui does. Plus i am not using multiple accounts as I have renamed my account, there seems to be a problem though with integration into the new one. GadgetsGuy (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

CyanogenMod is stock Android, and its open source. But still, in the case of the S5 page, that's a fair use image either way. It does not matter whether the source listed had "authorization". ViperSnake151  Talk  04:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

But according to OTRS rules, a user must prove that the image if licensed to himself must be proven by submitting the requirements. Plus what is your grudge against OTRS ticketing? If the image is his in the first place and the OTRS reviewer has proven it, then it would be restored. Like what I have said, i just nominated it and not deleted it as i am not an admin so the admin that deleted it may have deemed my observation right, Right? GadgetsGuy (talk) 04:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

But the problem is that clearly its not a legitimate free-use. Basically your are just arguing that it is of free use just because it was unnoticed for a long time. There have been uploads before that has been licensed the same way as these images originally from samsung are and they are alll deleted as they are not allowed under the fair use license. It is even stated that "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose" but there could be one in which a user could capture for himself the device (screen-off) and license it for free use or grab an author captured image on a article regarding the wiki article as long as it is licensed for free use by the original uploader on the source page. So to solve such, an review could deem it proper or not. GadgetsGuy (talk) 05:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

This phone isn't even out yet and has only been presented at an event open to accredited press. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy deletion is properly contested. Open a discussion at
  John Cline (talk
  ) 05:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

@John I am instead will be putting the s5 image on the Non free content review.GadgetsGuy (talk)

I understand. For what it is worth I do not believe the image qualifies under fair use because a free image can easily be obtained. Nevertheless, there is nothing here that so clearly resembles vandalism to allow for an exemption of 3RR. Therefor, it is incumbent on both editors to resolve this matter through alternative means of dispute resolution. The best recourse will prevail in the end.—

John Cline (talk

) 05:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've added a link to the discussion GadgetsGuy mentioned above. It shows that both users are proceeding in good faith to resolve this matter as colleagues; in the manner that best serves Wikipedia interests. The mini edit war was not a deliberate act of disruption by either user, the disruption was of no consequence and minimal in duration, and they were both amenable to wp:dr suggestions as soon as they were offered. In this light, I believe this thread can be closed without action. I hope a neutral administrator will demonstrate concurrence by closing this matter as resolved.—
  John Cline (talk
  ) 16:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Stale / considered warned. --slakr^\ talk / 02:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)