Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive248

Page: Ivory tower (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Preator1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [5]

Comments:
I didn't put anything for the diff of edit warring because I don't understand what goes there; the individual diffs seem to make the point. I have received zero communication from this user regarding a paragraph that I don't think belongs in the article, and they have not responded to my comment on the talk page.

Eflatmajor7th (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider
  Dreadstar ☥
  04:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I see the template I should have put on the user's talk page now. And thanks for protecting the article. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 07:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The article is entitled the Ivory Tower. The paragraph I added simply makes a short description of the Ivory Tower as it appears in the book, The NeverEnding Story. This is a very famous book. In the article itself the term Ivory Tower is a phrase used to describe imagination. In the book the Ivory Tower is the capital city of Fantasia, the land of human imagination. Other articles allow for sections that describe items as they appear in popular culture, why would this reference not be allowed? --Preator1 (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Page: List of Code Lyoko episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.47.68.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [6]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [7]
2. [8]
3. [9]
4. [10]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11] (which the IP then blanked)

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

Comments:

User is harassing me in the edit summaries. I know I've been warned for edit warring in the past, I just want it to stop.

) 20:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Less for the edit warring itself than for the general disruption. Huon (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Page:

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

Previous TNA Bound for Glory version reverted to: [12] Previous Slammiversary version reverted to: [13] Previous TNA Lockdown version reverted to: [14] Previous TNA Sacrifice version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts: TNA Bound for Glory

1. [16] 20 May 2014
2. [17] 27 May 2014
3. [18] 2 June 2014
4. [19] 8 June 2014
5. [20] 8 June 2014

Slammiversary

1. [21] 15 May 2014
2. [22] 27 May 2014
3. [23] 2 June 2014
4. [24] 8 June 2014
5. [25] 8 June 2014

TNA Lockdown

1. [26] 27 May 2014
2. [27] 2 June 2014
3. [28] 8 June 2014

TNA Sacrifice

1. [29] 27 May 2014
2. [30] 2 June 2014
3. [31] 9 June 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [32] Level 1, 28 May 2014
2. [33] Level 2, 28 May 2014
3. [34] Level 4, 6 June 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Michael josh keeps removing infoboxes from various wrestling articles without any edit summaries, messages on any of the articles' talk pages and does not respond to warnings left on their talk page. Michael josh was also given a level 4 vandalism warning on 8 June 2014, [35]. Aspects (talk) 06:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 3 days. EdJohnston (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

J05HYYY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Standards */ discussion concluded, bringing up edit."
2. Consecutive edits made from 22:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC) to 22:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
   1. 22:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Standards */ how to turn off safe browsing"
   2. 22:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Standards */ link"
3. 23:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Standards */ please discuss properly in talk before removing."
4. [36]

+ three yesterday

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "/* June 2014 */ follow-up"
2. 22:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "More disruptive"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 17:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Google Cookies */ Reply. I would like to hear the removing editor's opinion though."
2. 19:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Google Cookies */ Reply"
3. 22:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Google Cookies */ Reply"
4. 22:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Google Cookies */ Sure"
5. 04:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Safe Browsing API */ That would be finr"
6. 22:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Safe Browsing API */ Reply"
7. 22:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Safe Browsing API */ Duh"
8. 23:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Safe Browsing API */ Mu"

Comments:

Anon edit made by 86.152.89.167 is clearly the same editor. The editor has decided that "the world needs to know" this conspiracy theory and refuses to take the advice of other editors that the material is not reliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the edits, you will find that Walter has made the same amount of edits as me, if not more. Eventually a compromise edit was reached, where both Walter and I agreed that the user should be informed about how to turn of safe browsing. J05HYYY (talk) 00:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Page: Dave Brat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cwobeel (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. 13:47, 12 June 14 diff
2. 14:08, 12 June 14 diff
3. 14:41, 12 June 14 diff
4. 15:30, 12 June 14 diff

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User:Cwobeel calling people that disagree with him "lazy" on the talk page

Comments:

User:Cwobeel simply reverts edits and makes no attempt to work out differences. He then calls those who disagrees with his reverts "lazy" and "childish", which of course if very mature of him.--NK (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Arrived at that article while patrolling WP:BLP/N. Granted, that article has experienced intensive editing over the last few days, including many edits and reverts by NazariyKaminski, but nothing out of the extraordinary. Now that we have arrived at a compromise on that particular edit, this report seems to seek punishment, which is unwarranted. Cwobeel (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I did not call anyone lazy. I asserted that it is lazy to use full quotes when as editors we are capable of summarizing quotes by paraphrasing. Also, NazariyKaminski never engaged in a discussion on the subject, I started a thread, but he did not engage. Cwobeel (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

See also Talk:Dave_Brat. NazariyKaminski has not engaged even once in any of the discussions on that article as other editors and myself have done. Cwobeel (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Result: No violation. The diffs provided don't show four reverts. The last diff seems to be a copy edit. Cwobeel did in fact give up on reinserting the 'holocaust' language to which you objected. I share your concern about the 'holocaust' wording. EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Page: Michael U. Gisriel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Mdpoly5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Leevank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [37]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

• And another 62 reverts at the time of posting this

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned by other user

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

Comments:

• Result: Article protected for a month by User:Smalljim. EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

Sudhir7777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "india membership at UNSC & at different groups"
2. 01:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 02:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC) to 03:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
   1. 02:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "i added the different groups to which india belongs like brics , g20 etc"
   2. 03:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 09:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Changes to lede */"

Comments:

While not

10:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one month. In addition to the edit warring in more than one article, the user has committed several copyright violations (his English is very poor, so he often copies the text directly from the source), and his edits are disruptively biased in favor of India.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Page

Systems of inheritance among various peoples (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 612734558 by Sam Sailor (talk) Not helping any other user, just adding minor data"
2. 05:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 612713479 by 151.228.106.6 (talk)"
3. 21:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 612672501 by NQ (talk)"
4. 18:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 612470533 by NQ (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[3RR-warning]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Repeatedly making edits without consensus, being reverted by different editors each time. Even continuing with the edit warring after being given a stern warning by Bishonen. Thomas.W ^talk 10:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I talked to some other users, like NQ and Sam Sailor, and they let me introduce my edit. Seriously, I don't know why making an slight edit to an article is such a serious issue. Graniole (talk) 10:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment: My reply to your post on my talk page certainly was in no way meant to be understood as an acceptance. The fact that I reverted you in the first place should also indicate that. Sam Sailor ^Sing 11:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC) (please  mention me on reply)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Nikkimaria (talk) 11:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Block upped to indefblock for being a  Confirmed sockpuppet of Ansegam (talk · contribs). Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

Horst-schlaemma (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 11:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC) to 11:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
   1. 11:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Weimar Republic and the Third Reich */ No consensus for the former photo."
   2. 11:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Economy */ ECB picture, better quality image."
2. Consecutive edits made from 12:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC) to 14:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
   1. 12:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Weimar Republic and the Third Reich */ We're not changing sensible content like that without consent. Revert again and you're getting reported. See talk page. Thanks."
   2. 14:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "/* top */ more purposeful map"
3. 19:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Weimar Republic and the Third Reich */ Nothing will be changed here before the discussion didn't come to an end. Stop the EW or I'll report."
4. 23:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by
   TW
   )"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I am uninvolved in this debate, but I see a pattern of disruptive editing, POV pushing, and edit warring by this user here Mostlyoksorta (talk) 01:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a coordinated attack on Horst-schlaemma: [42]--82.113.121.228 (talk) 05:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no connection to Horst or to any other user 'attacking' him. The Three Revert Rule was clearly broken, he engaged in edit warring and I reported him because I saw that it was disruptive to the talk going on the Germany talk page. I have no connection to the users who have different views than Horst and I have no opinion at the moment about the argument in question. I only believe that Horst was disruptive and clearly engaged in a violation of the 3RR and was edit warring. Please do not accuse me of a coordinated attack unless there is any proof. This case is simple 3RR was violated. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 08:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC))

We see several attempts at pushing through a POV here before the discussion is settled and a common ground is found. The reverts thus were inevitable to protect this vital article. Perhaps the page should be protected for a few days or the relevant users blocked, as it'll probably happen again. They clearly are on a raid. It's beyond comprehension. Thanks and all the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 09:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I will not get sucked into an edit war with Horst because, like I said, I have no opinion on this. However, he reverted the photo AGAIN, without consensus on the talk page. I am not sure what relevant users he wants blocked, since it seems like he is the only one in violation of 3RR and has used highly disruptive techniques and language, see [43]. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 10:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC))

These people are on a mission to rail down the article. The picture was at first ADDED without consensus and we have an ongoing vote. Still it's getting re-established without the issue being settled. That's not how it should be done. Obviously the mission is damaging this Feature-Class article. It's not in line with the FA consensus there. So of course I'll keep reverting, even if it's against the 3RR. Admins were asked to step in but didn't react so far. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 10:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Horst-schlaemma, that is fine, like I said I won't argue with you. I am in fact curious how Wikipedia will enforce it's 'bright line rule.' I think the rule speaks for itself and allowing the knowing continuous open violation of such a rule sets a very dangerous precedent. Whether or not you win the content dispute Wikipedia has a framework in which all users should work - this framework demands civility and has a hard and fast rule that edit warring in violation of the 3RR is not an acceptable means of working through content disputes. Frankly, I am disappointed by the administrator's inaction not because I care about the content dispute, but because I want to see a fair and consistent application of Wikipedia rules. I think the rules are sadly not being applied consistently. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC))

I agree with you. I hope the issue gets resolved asap. All the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 11:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Protected 5 days. This can be lifted if consensus is reached on the talk page about including the picture of Buchenwald victims. You could ask at
  WP:AN for someone to close the discussion. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 13:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It would be useful if the Berlin in ruins picture is also taken out of the article. I am a German national, but if the Buchenwald picture is taken out of the article instead of a Berlin in ruins picture it disturbs me BIG TIME. In my books the Admins moves are recently supportive of Holocaust denial – this is disturbing to say the least. I would also support calls to block User:Horst-schlaemma on editing the article on Germany --Catflap08 (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate Mostlyoksorta and EdJohnston actions to prevent further editing on the page. I also think that consensus would be reached a lot more easily if User:Horst-schlaemma was asked to sit this discussion out. He has repeatedly reverted, stonewalled the conversation, and threatened other editors. He appears to be disrupting the conversation so that he can keep the article the way it is, which is probably, in large part, the way he wrote it.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

First, everyone needs to calm down and have a cool drink or two. Enjoy your weekend, leave the article alone, go out and have fun. Then come back and think again if causing all this fuss is such a good idea. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not need a weekend to fell sick and disgusted actually--Catflap08 (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Page

2014 Jinnah International Airport attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 612819670 by Dr.K. (talk)"
2. 20:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 612803802 by Anir1uph (talk)"
3. 16:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 612786083 by Devbolt (talk)"
4. 03:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC) ""
5. 02:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC) ""
6. 21:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continuous edit-warring adding POV material in the lead in Wikipedia's voice. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: link

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Link of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [44]
2. [45]
3. [46]

Comments:
For me, I voluntarily commit that I will not edit for 48h starting now. He removed the edit warring notice on his talk page also. Aside: He also nominated two articles I edited recently for afd here: 1, 2. He has made no attempts to discuss or to clearly provide the policy for afd. He had earlier reported me in ani for a content dispute and abused another editor who participated on the discussion, I abandoned the discussion around that point. --Jyoti (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Result: Article protected five days. Please use the talk page to reach agreement. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• User:Jyoti.mickey, why didn't you notify me with {{subst:an3-notice}}? Btw, I didn't abuse any editor but asked for explanations. Your edit was not done in good faith that is why I reverted you and also took part in the discussion. Thank you. Edmondhills (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I put proper template, you removed. check the diff you did abuse. You first revert and then comment, that is not

WP:BRD, you should first discuss. Jyoti (talk

) 02:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: 5onofmyfa7her (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [47]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [48]
2. [49]
3. [50]
4. [51]
5. [52]
6. [53]
7. [54]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55] [56] [57] [58]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [59]

Comments:
This user is edit warring over his preferred spelling of the article subject's name. The naïve search-and-replace method he uses to change the spelling in the article ends up breaking image links. Unfortunately he is completely unresponsive to any attempts to communicate. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 72 hours. Warring on the name of the article subject since April 30. Other editors on the talk page have considered the naming issue but they have decided to follow the majority of the sources. User has no edits besides this article and has never used the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Page

LG G3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "The lead should reflect the body so there is no problem with highlighting its key features. Again, you cannot remove or modify sourced material as per
   WP:Verfiability
   . I have addressed your tone issue and added further sources."
2. 10:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "Which is no reason to blank out sourced material as per WP:Verifiability."
3. 17:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC) "reverting unexplained removal of source material"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Re: G3 */ new section"
2. 15:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Re: G3 */"
3. 17:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Re: G3 */"
4. 17:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Re: G3 */"
5. 18:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Insists on specific wording and redundant citations, attacks attempts to revise and copyedit lead by stating that per

18:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I have never argued that WP:V guarantees inclusion. You have clearly misinterpreted this policy - You're suppose to not modify the core meaning of the source, which would constitute to violating

WP:OR

. You have been equally involved in edit warring, if not more, so it's an irony you're reporting me here. First you reverted by giving no explanation whatsoever and then after being challenged, claiming that the lead should not contain material from the body, when in fact the opposite is the case - The lead should reflect on the body. I have made attempts to reach a consensus by addressing your concern with regards to the tone and added further sources, yet other than engaging in a pointless edit war, you do not seem very constructive at all. See User:ViperSnake151's edit warring diffs:

• [60]
• [61]
• [62]
• [63]
• [64]

YJAX (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

No no no, I said the lead must summarize from the body, and that unless its contentious or something, you usually do not have to recite things in the lead if they are cited in the body. And I also do not think that edits made to continue one after a revert count as a "revert" per se. And how did I modify the core meaning? Is it OR not to refer to the ahem laser autofocus as laser autofocus? ViperSnake151  Talk  18:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It's surprising how contradicting you are. All you did was basically repeat what I said, so you obviously agree that the "lead must summarize from the body" as you claim. Since the qHD screen and laser autofocus are two major features from the body, you basically agree that there is no problem with summarizing them on the lead. In fact, you even state that we don't even need to recite them, when in fact, you started the edit war through claiming that there was no source on the qHD part. You seem to change your stand by the minute. It is OR if you change the core meaning - You removed the "laser" part and instead replaced it with the term "infrared", which is a blatant example of OR. You're not the inventor of this product. YJAX (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Result: No action. There have been no reverts by YJAX since 11 June, no actual 3RR violation and no discussion on the talk page. If the war restarts, make a new report. EdJohnston (talk) 04:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Page

2014 Jinnah International Airport attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC) Undid revision 612915301 by Dr.K. (talk)
2. 17:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 17:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 19:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC) ""
5. 17:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"
2. 17:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC) "IPsock"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Block evasion. This IP continues edit-warring started by 108.84.26.45 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Both IPs geolocate in Georgia and IP 108.84.26.45 was blocked yesterday due to violation of 3RR. Article documents a current event and the sock IPs keep adding a POV political edit at the lead. IP sock 76.122.113.49 is also blanking details about a letter from the Indian Prime Minister to his Pakistani counterpart. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected (semi) for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you very much Bbb23. All the best. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Page: Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Qizilbash123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [65]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [66] 16:52, June 13, 2014. Removed text and photo of women protesting.
2. [67] 18:46, June 13, 2014. Removed text and photo of women protesting.
3. [68] 14:16, June 14, 2014. Removed text and photo of women protesting.
4. [69] 15:40, June 14, 2014. Removed text and photo of women protesting.
5. [70] 16:28, June 14, 2014. Removed text and photo of women protesting, calling the previous change "vandalism".

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [71] 15:47, June 14, 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [72] (See Talk:Iran#Photo_wars and Talk:Iran#The_Protest_of_Iranian_Women_Against_the_New_Rules.)

Comments:

Qizilbash123 has a legitimate complaint that the article has recently been given too many photos. However, the photo of thousands of women protesting in 1979 is very relevant to Iran, and is of great interest to English language readers. Qizilbash123 has been warring to remove the photo, calling my most recent careful reworking of the article text "vandalism". He has been warned three times against edit-warring in the past two weeks, so my warning after his 4 reverts should have been heeded. However, he continued to revert a 5th time after the warning. He is not acting in a rational manner, thus the wiki should be protected from disruption. Binksternet (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

) 17:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• WP:3RR and their future conduct. I would hardly call the comment above such a promise.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 17:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • EdJohnston suggested I look at this given
    fairly bad misunderstanding at best. As such, temporarily blocking Qizilbash123 is a good, preventive means of cutting the edit war off at the knees. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's
    / 22:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

User:EtienneDolet

(Result: Blocked)

Page: Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mehmed the Conqueror (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [73]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [79]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [80]

Comments:

(Comment from uninvolved editor) There has been no discussion of the issue on the talk page (the diff above is repeat of the 3RR warning). Also, reporter has failed to notify reportee with {{

) 05:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one day This is a clear case of edit warring after being warned to stop (warning followed by a revert) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Page: Tony Abbott (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Andreas11213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 08:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

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

1. 00:55, 15 June 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 612831897 by Alans1977 (talk) They don't need to, it looks better just as the Liberal Party, if he is the PM of Australia it's obvious it's the Liberal Party of Australia")
2. 06:44, 15 June 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 612961206 by Timeshift9 (talk) Cool, I don't see any consensus for the change Alans1977 wants to make")
3. 06:47, 15 June 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 612980006 by Timeshift9 (talk) What do you mean no thanks? I always have to gain consensus to make a change, so should Alans1977")
4. 06:55, 15 June 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 612980399 by Timeshift9 (talk) You're the one trying to make a change, I'm pretty sure you're the one who needs consensus")

—Alans1977 (talk) 08:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one month Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Page

GNOME Shell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC) "do not worry; I am used to that"
2. 12:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 612876817 by Czarkoff (talk) I am BOLD; I presented ARGUMENTs, which you did not"
3. 10:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC) "contrast to
   KDE Plasma Workspaces Aaron Seigo
   wrote quite extensively about the different approaches"

More, albeit at slower rate, can be found in article's history.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

I did not warn him, but Aoidh did.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC) "GNOME Shell#Diagrams"

Comments:

The discussion at Talk:GNOME Shell#Diagrams is lasting since October 2013, and ScotXW simply ignores everyone. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion on the talk page seems to indicate a pretty clear consensus against ScotXW adding his images to the article, and has been slow edit-warring to include these images for a few months now. Diffs showing this are [81][82][83][84], and these aren't even counting the three diffs above Czarkoff gave above in the initial report, so that's at least seven reverts on this one article alone regarding these images. ScotXW has also started using inappropriate personal attacks ("and you are, obviously too stupid to present arguments...") in addition to the edit-warring shown in the diffs. - Aoidh (talk) 09:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Page: Tony Abbott (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Timeshift9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 09:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

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

1. 02:08, 15 June 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 612955274 by
   WP:BRD
   ")
2. 06:45, 15 June 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 612979910 by Andreas11213 (talk) no thanks")
3. 06:52, 15 June 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 612980090 by Andreas11213 (talk) rubbish, you've been trying to change these for ages and have been reverted by multiple users. GET CONSENSUS.")

—Alans1977 (talk) 09:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Timeshift accurately points out that the attempted edit has not gained consensus, nor has it even been mentioned on the talk page. This is not even a technical vio, and it is yet another attempt by Alans1977 to circumvent the BRD process. If Alans1977 continues to edit-war on this, I'm happy to stand by Timeshift in support of due wikiprocess. Those wishing to make a controversial edit should make their case on the talk page. --Pete (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not edit warring on this issue. I am pointing out that Timeshift has violated the three revert rule. Alans1977 (talk) 10:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

4 reverts are required to break 3rr. Timeshift (talk) 10:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

My mistake. I thought that 3 reverts violated the rule. Withdraw my submission if that is the case. Alans1977 (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm calling gammon on that. Just a couple of sections previously, you successfully reported User:Andreas11213 for a 3RR vio with four reverts. [85] You know the procedure. --Pete (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The procedure as far as I am aware is 3 referts. I chose to put Timeshift up after I saw no action on him as well. Alans1977 (talk) 11:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, may I draw the attention of any admin to this and this and this and this. Alans1977 is no stranger to 3RR procedure. --Pete (talk) 11:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

So you attempt to excuse behavior because of edit changes made by other people?Alans1977 (talk) 11:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Again I suggest you read and comprehend. You have multiple appearances on this noticeboard for 4 reverts or more. You have reported other editors for 4 reverts. Your claim that you don't know the rules is hard to accept, given your long and repetitious history here. --Pete (talk) 11:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Once again, are you trying to excuse the behaviors of others on the past behaviors of people not under current conversation? For the record I thought that a violation of the 3RR is a the third revert not the 4th revert. Why are you trying to deflect behavior?Alans1977 (talk) 11:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Declined. As others have pointed out, four reverts are required to breach 3RR. On that basis, the reporter has "withdrawn" the report. I should add a couple of things. First, I agree with the other users that given the many reports
  WP:1RR restriction, so editors should be careful.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 14:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: Jalapenos do exist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: For diff 1: [86] For diff 2: [87]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [88]
2. [89]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [90] Diff of official ARBIA sanction warning: [91] Diff of previous warning for edit warring in violation of 1rr sanctions in ARBPIA related articles: [92]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [93]

Comments:

As documented above the editor has been officially notified of the ARBPIA sanctions and previously been warned about edit warring in violation of the 1rr restrictions in Isreal-Palestine related articles. The diffs above show two clear reverts of other editors within 24 hours. I gave the editor the option to self revert but he declined. In light of previous warnings, refusal to self revert and that in my view the editor's pattern of edits at the article in question is not consistent with

) 15:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Page: Pan-Arab colors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Omar-toons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Omar-toons edit warring is characterised by a combination of complete reverts, complete reverts plus new contentious edits, complete rejection of previously existing text or any linguistic improvements to intro text.

1. [94]
2. [95]
3. [96]
4. [97]
5. [98]
6. [99]
7. [100]
8. [101]
9. [102]
10. [103]
11. [104]
12. [105]
13. [106]
14. [107]
15. [108]
16. [109]
17. [110]
18. [111]
19. [112]
20. [113]
21. [114]
22. [115]

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

Comments:

As Omar-toons' almost two dozen reverts demonstrate, he has adopted a very aggressive, bad faith and confrontational approach in an effort to force through his own edits in the absence of consensus. He rejects overtures to take the issues to Talk, and instead responds with false accusations of sock puppetry (without offering any evidence). After his edit warring was referred to as vandalism, he used that same term to refer to others who were attempting to conserve the existing text.

Page protection was requested yesterday (both for and against Omar-toons), however, Callanecc directed the issue to this noticeboard. The details for the page protection requests (which explain the substance of the problem) are below: 2.28.240.160 (talk) 11:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Note. Removed those details.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• I've left a note at Omar-Toons's talk page. As I stated in my note, I'm inclined to semi-protect the page (too many different IPs to sanction) and block Omar-Toons for edit warring. I'd like to hear from him why he believes he should not be sanctioned.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, thank you for your involvement, the substance of which I have noted. If you need any further information from me I will be happy to provide it. 2.28.240.160 (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Your latest revert was unwelcome.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, thank you but I have NOT performed ANY edits (reverts or otherwise) to Pan-Arab colors since yesterday. User 78.149.26.4 is NOT me. As mentioned in the page protection comments, a simple geographical confirmation of IP addresses will demonstrate this. 2.28.240.160 (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't accept that. All of the IPs geolocate to England. Some geolocate to different spots in England, but geolocate is not reliable enough to eliminate the possibility - in this case probability - that the same person is using different IP addresses to edit the article. The coincidence is too stark. You certainly have edited using the same range of IPs, e.g., 2.28.240.152. If you prefer me to think of you as a different individual, then you have no excuse for your edit warring and should be separately blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

With the greatest of respect, the United Kingdom has a population of some 60 million, so the fact that numerous IP addresses within the UK are being used to contribute to the Pan-Arab colors page is not in any way suggestive of it being one and the same person. Moreover, you will find that most of the IP addresses active on the same day as each other from within the UK are separated by significant distances, sometimes even several hundred miles of one another, including the following localities: Sheffield, North East Derbyshire district, Chesterfield, Northampton and London. The last edit, for example, made by User 78.149.26.4, shows as being from London. My location (as confirmed by my IP address) is a minimum of three hours driving distance from London. I invite you to look at the time stamps of my contributions on Wikipedia today, and the time stamp of User 78.149.26.4, and determine whether it is possible for me to have driven to and from London within that time to make contributions from IP addresses in two wholly different parts of the UK hundreds of miles away.

I further invite you to consider what possible reason someone would have for acting in the manner that you suggest in this particular instance, as there have been no earlier edits today, so something like the 3RR is not a risk that would merit someone having to operate from a different IP address. I have never engaged in any element of sock puppetry, and as I stated in my comments yesterday, I view the use of sock puppets as a very serious breach of trust between that user and the rest of the Wikipedia community.2.28.240.160 (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Wait a minute! That's clearly a single user using different IPs to add persistently

WP:OR content without using the talk page (I started two discussions to which he didn't, or refused to, participate), then aswering using the explaination that "since a fact isn't contradicted by the source, we could consider it true"... and I'm the one who is facing blocking? Thanks to manage this issue in order to protect what Wikipedia is: an encyclopedia, not a tribune for ethnic nationalism (ie: Pan-Arabism, in this case). --Omar-toons (talk

) 16:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, this aggressive and confrontational response by Omar-toons is symptomatic of the approach that he takes to anyone who he disagrees with. Also, he's apparently now adding to his earlier baseless allegations with claims of "ethnic nationalism" (a very strange claim which has not been made earlier, and which he has offered no evidence for). As to the false claims of sock puppetry, as mentioned before, perhaps he would like to explain how a person can make an edit in central England and then within minutes make an edit in London (southern England). I ask again for Omar-toons to pull back from the route of edit warring and engage in measured, constructive discussion in Talk. 2.28.240.160 (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I have just reached out to Omar-toons directly on his Talk page to see if we can resolve these persistent issues together in a friendly and constructive manner. I await his response. 2.28.240.160 (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion started 2 weeks ago on article's talk page... too bad, you didn't paid attention, you just have undone each edit without answering or giving your opinion. Otherwise, for example, if you had take a look on article's talk page you could have seen that there's no consensus about adding Somaliland's flag and that no source is supporting its adding, but you chose to ignore the discussion. I let admins decide. :) --Omar-toons (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Yet further sad proof of Omar-toons' total unwillingness to engage with others and his insistence of forcing through his own edits no matter what. Very sad.

Contrary to his claims, I have followed all discussions. Rather it is he himself that has refused to seek consensus, refused to state his reasons for continual reverting, refused to state his objections to the longstanding intro text, refused to take a cooperative approach, and now even refused to discuss the matter at all.

I look forward to the decision of the admins. 2.28.240.160 (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Note. I don't like any of the comments, either by the IP(s) or by Omar-toons. I have therefore blocked Omar-toons for 72 hours and semi-protected the article for two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Page: Template:Fascism sidebar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 95.199.198.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / 95.199.198.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / 95.199.221.179 (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. [116]
2. [117]
3. [118]
4. [119]
5. [120]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [121]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Template_talk:Fascism sidebar#width

Comments:
the edits by me after the last listed diff were self-reverted, since I realized that engaging in the same bahaviour was not a good idea. 188.74.96.138 (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected (semi) for two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Page: Boy Meets Girl (1938 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beyond My Ken (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 (half-restore of edit
5. diff (second half-restore of edit

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning and reminder of

Comments: This user is continuing to make pointy edits on this article after being told not to do so on other articles on the Film Project talkpage before. He had to apologise to me previously for this behaviour too. He was blocked for 24hrs in January for similar edit-wars on No Other Woman (1933 film). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I apologized to Lugnuts previously for my incivility, not for my edits, which are both within policy and acceptable according to MOS, which does not specify any preferred method for formatting reference sections. However, considering that Lugnuts is one of the ruder editors on Wikipedia himself, I shall not be apologizing for incivility again - and the edits remain a legitimate format. Please note that other editors -- MarnetteD, for instance - seem to have no problem with the formatting. BMK (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, as long as we're bringing up blocks, Lugnuts' block log shows three for edit warring and one for disruptive editing. BMK (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• No violation. No breach of
  WP:3RR. You folk are experienced editors. Please work these things out without sniping at each other (I haven't checked who said what to whom and when).--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 17:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. We'll work this out. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Page: Blue Army (Poland) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Faustian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [122]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [123]
2. [124]
3. [125]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Blue Army (Poland)

Comments: User Faustian continues to add a disputed statement, which is currently being discussed on the article Talk Page, the editor has been notified in the past that per WP guidelines if a statement has been removed due to objections from another editor, a debate needs to take place first before the statement can be re-added. Unfortunately, Faustian continues to re-add the text despite the fact that the discussion about the statement has not been settled. --COD T 3 (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Note. First, learn how to file a report here. Those aren't diffs; they are revisions. Nor are they even in the proper order. Second, I don't see any recent breach of
  WP:3RR. As for edit warring, both of you have a history on this article and a history of being sanctioned on this article. I suggest you stick to the talk page, which is fairly contentious as it is.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 19:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Page

User:Michael N Cooper (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Michael N Cooper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC) "Leave it alone, this is an official warning"
2. 20:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC) "Can you read? I said leave it alone. It is against the rules to edit other people's talk pages"
3. 20:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC) "Don't mess with people's user pages"
4. Consecutive edits made from 17:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC) to 19:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
   1. 17:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 612822536 by RHaworth (talk). The categories on the user page are OK"
   2. 19:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Talk! */ +comment"
2. 20:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC) "+comment"
3. 20:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Talk! */ +comment"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 20:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Talk! */ +comment"
2. 20:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC) "+comment"
3. 20:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Talk! */ +comment"

Comments:

I am hoping to drive the point home that User:Michael N Cooper is not a talk page. Launchballer 21:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 22:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [126]
2. [127]
3. [128]

• Blocked IP for 72 hours for vandalism. However, I don't get this edit by another user.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

This anonymous user has been persistently trying to remove key information from several articles (Russians and Serbs), namely that they are a Slavic people. They appear to be unresponsive to dialogue and... ah, and have been taken care of as I was writing this comment.

I'm not sure if this was actually vandalism. The IP seems to be another incarnation of Chaosname (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who took offense at the fact that the various Slavic people are, in fact, Slavs, and has used multiple sockpuppets to "fix" this in the past (see contribs of Lionenause (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Shanesterman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as an example). They'll most likely be back.

The actual vandalism was that edit by the other user. --illythr (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

[UPD] Ggggh12ru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Seems to be a sleeper. --illythr (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for the history. The edit by the other user seemed out of keeping with their other contributions, although I'm hardly an expert on any of this content-wise. The IP actually restored what the other editor inserted, although it's possible that they were't paying attention when they did it. The editing was disruptive, whether you call it vandalism or something else, and they operate from an unusual location. Although I know nothing about the Chaos SPI, the IPs listed as possible puppets don't geolocate to Russia, FWTW.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The IP made a blind revert there, I think. Hm, yes, I vaguely recall them saying something about living in Canada. Unless they had moved in the meantime, I guess it was someone else with a similar idea. They were certainly disruptive, so thanks for the quick reaction. --illythr (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Page

Tokyo-hot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 613138244 by Darkness Shines (talk)"
2. 12:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 613137897 by Fraggle81 (talk)"
3. 12:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 12:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC) ""
5. 12:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC) ""
6. 12:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC) ""
7. 12:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC) "General note: Removal of maintenance templates on
   TW
   )"
2. 12:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 12:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC) "/* AFD template */ new section"

Comments:

Blocked indefinitely by Smalljim for disruptive editing and removal of maintenance templates. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [129]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [130]
2. [131]
3. [132]
4. [133]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [135]

Comments:
The 4th revert was by an IP. The edit summary and the fact that it's essentially the same edit indicates that the user simply logged out to make the revert. DeCausa (talk) 08:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Reply from Smhhalataei: I don't believe that there is any issue with my current edition of my contribution to Mahdi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Please check that. I added the section : "Existence of Living Mahdi" to the page. The format of my text is exactly the same as several other sections in the text such as : "Anticipating the Advent of the Imam" , "The Beloved to the Prophet", "When Will the Time, of his appearance in Masjidi-ll-Ḥarâm in Makkah, Come?" , etc. The book that I referred to has been cited several times by other authors of the page. There is essentially no problem with that.

The only issue is that I added a variant of my paragraph and Edward321 kept deleting that. If you check his talk page you find that he does that all the time and many other users complained about that. Later on, DeCausa came along and for some reason backed Edward321.

I would like some higher authority resolve this issue since Edward321 doesn't let anyone to add anything to the page.Smhhalataei (talk)

The above post is confirmation that the IP from the 4th revert and Smhhalataei are the same user. (Also, the IP posted this "warning" on Edward321's talk page which includes the confirmation: "You deleted my creditable paragraph several times!".) DeCausa (talk) 09:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. I also blocked the IP for the same length of time. The block is for edit warring and for socking. Whether there were four reverts presents an interesting question. Normally, an intervening edit by a bot doesn't make the next edits by the same user "new". Here, the first diff above is a revert of an anti-vandalism bot. In this instance, the user restored the same material removed by ClueBot. I'm not sure what triggered ClueBot to label the material vandalism. I don't see anyone insisting here that the edits were vandalism. For that reason, I didn't count that first diff as a revert. This is all a technicality because the edit warring and other misconduct were sufficient to justify the block.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Page: Quantum of Solace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SchroCat%7CSchroCat

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [136]
2. [137]
3. [138]
4. [139]

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

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

Comments:
We all know that Wikipedia is free to edit, right? Well, I'm a person who looks up to Rotten Tomatoes and appreciates what they are doing. But this user doesn't seem to appreciate them. I have been new to Wikipedia for two days, and I have an enjoyment in editing the wrongs and doing the right thing. I say that the James Bond film Quantum of Solace received mixed-to-positive reviews from critics, meaning that reviews start out mixed and then become more positive. For example, the article for Date Night states that it received mixed-to-positive reviews as well, due to its 67% on RT, like the 64% that QoS received. When I say THAT, the user changes it to the normal way it was. While I didn't understand all these claims and notifications you could get at the time, I switched it back, and the user wouldn't leave the article alone. The user then talked to me saying all this junk that there is no such thing as mixed-to-positive (he's from London, so what does he know?). I reply saying that there is and he still wouldn't believe in the m-t-p thing. Then, he goes to the very first thing I edited, which was the plot to the film Charlie Countryman and criticized my edit. I considered this an act of abuse or a way to get even, which he denied. I still considered this an offensive act since we were in the argument. Then I decide to try and end the argument requesting to give a list of what was wrong with my edit to CC and that I planned to solve the problem to the argument, but he didn't agree, bringing up a edit warring noticeboard discussion notice in my talk. Then he reported me for trying to stop the argument yet I still don't know about these notices. I want to edit in a positive environment, and if I can't edit in a positive environment when he's around, I'll keep thinking about the negative environment I'm already living in.

Revenge reporting, see Edit War report above this one. Without even looking at the merits of either argument your comment about his being from a certain location makes his statements invalid. To me that is enough to get you blocked as a personal attack on another editor.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 22:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• No violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: [141]

Diffs of the users' reverts:

1. [609759745]
2. [610766909]
3. [611707155]
4. [611759058]
5. [612063971]
6. [612064760]
7. [612448168]
8. [612555969]
9. [612651352]
10. [612651463]
11. [612664670]
12. [612664755]
13. [612744701]
14. [612813658]
15. [612814455]
16. [612815881]
17. [612816831]
18. [612866668]
19. [612869487]
20. [612873327]
21. [612984383]
22. [612990497]
23. [612991024]
24. [612996371]
25. [613062909]
26. [613070250]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [612986209] / [612990952]

Comments:

• Note. Diffs would have been helpful,
  Inhakito, especially for a page where everyone seems to be battling with each other.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 23:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • ★ Nacho ★
    ★ 09:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I have warned both users of 3RR before this was filled, I have also submitted a page protection request. I am uninvolved in the war, I passed by it on recent changes. Retartist (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • ★ Nacho ★
    ★ 09:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
• Note. Just to point out this user has nothing to do with me. Nice name though! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Warned. The next revert of the article may lead to a block. The issue was also reported at RFPP, where User:Callanecc left a response, advising a complaint at AN3 while declining the request for protection. EdJohnston (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

That report was me :p Retartist (talk) 05:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Page: Civilian casualty ratio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Yarron (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: These are the editor's edits in the last 24 hours to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict section of the article, which is within scope of the ARBPIA discretionary sanctions/restrictions.

1. [142]
2. [143]
3. [144]

The last edit is certainly a 1RR violation.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] I informed the editor about 1RR here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] This content is being discussed on the talk page. Talk:Civilian_casualty_ratio#Israeli.E2.80.93Palestinian_conflict_-_Line_lacks_credible_source

Comments:
The editor says they are a new editor. Their comments and edits are in my view consistent with those of someone who is here to advocate and will edit war to impose their views on the article unless they are informed that they cannot do that and are stopped when they do. Please make sure they understand that they cannot advocate and they cannot edit war. They also need an ARBPIA notification. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I am a new editor, but this is not my primary defense. My understanding of rule 1RR is permitting One "Revert" or "Undo" of another editors message within 24 hours. I believe I conformed to this rule by applying a single Undo. If my understanding of this rule is incorrect please point out how I have overstepped it and I will accept any ramification of that overstepping. It should also be noted that another editor previously enforced this specific change I made so it's not an issue of advocating.

To the 2nd accusation of advocating an agenda: My compatriot that has reported me has informed me that rather than inform me of any breach of rules as a result of possible "newbie" error, since they see a "storm coming", they find it necessary to report me foreseeing an "advocate" so to speak. To this end I find myself in the uncomfortable position of needing to defend actions that are "foreseen" rather than in evidence. I can only ask the arbitrator to please review my changes and the talk page of the article in question and from a neutral perspective see if I have been unreasonable in my talks or advocating in my edits.

My aim coming on as an editor was to ensure neutrality, reduce loquaciousness and ensure proper grammar. Because I started off with a contentious issue, I do not see that as evidence for advocating an agenda.

Hoping to resolve this quickly. Yarron (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Some comments. They are not really pertinent to this report since this noticeboard is primarily for technical violations, but Yarron did ask...

• The probability that you are a genuinely new editor is probably less than 50%. The probability that you are a genuinely new editor who isn't here to engineer content to fit your preferred narrative is approximately 0%. Advocacy and dishonesty in the ARBPIA topic area are commonplace, almost the norm. Why ? I have no idea. That tells me nothing about you specifically except that I should assume nothing, so that is what I do.

Response: I am not sure how you reach these probabilities. I can only assume it is speculation based on anecdotal experience. As I stated earlier you seem to consistently put me in a position of defending myself based on your previous experience. Forcing me to prove a negative (such as me being new or not and my intentions) is particularly difficult if not impossible. I am taking exception to you doing it and putting you on notice to please refrain. Yarron (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding "It should also be noted that another editor previously enforced this specific change I made so it's not an issue of advocating." Your conclusion is based on the premise that the other editor is a neutral party. The premise is false.

Response: I am not aware of the party being neutral or non-neutral. Nor is it necessarily relevant to my reasoning. I presented that argument as an indication that there was some consensus toward the line in dispute. And that the arbitrator should consider it. Yarron (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• If you are interested in why I said "You need to read WP:NOTADVOCATE and comply with it" and that your "comments and edits are in my view consistent with those of someone who is here to advocate" I am happy to tell you. I don't normally do this because in the many years I have edited in the topic area, out of all the interactions with hundreds of editors who violated
  WP:NOTADVOCATE
  , there hasn't been a single instance I can think of where anything I said or any evidence presented to them changed their behavior.

Response: My interest in asking that was genuine. Again you are applying your anecdotal experience from others on me. I would expect as a matter of course that each issue is considered on a case by case basis rather than immediately forming a conclusion about my person based on your own preconceptions. Yarron (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• • Your statement on the talk page that "One should therefore explore the possibility that it [i.e. the statistics for the number of children killed by Israel] is a fabrication that got picked up along the way by various agenda based media outlets" is extraordinary. Perhaps if you imagine that the "it" in that statement referred to Israeli children killed by Palestinians rather than Palestinian children killed by Israelis you will see why. Thinking about that can tell you something useful about your preconceptions and the degree to which they could present a risk to the integrity of Wikipedia content. That was the first red flag.

Response: My personal experience researching the Arab-Israeli conflict has indicated many cases of fabrications that have squeezed through the cracks of less reputable news agencies. I did a lot of searching for that report and simply couldn't find it. I suggested to explore the possibility that it was a fabrication. Unfortunately my lack of Arabic precluded me from finding it. However once it was found, I dropped the issue and thanked you for your efforts. Yarron (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• • A second red flag was your apparent lack of knowledge about the level of violence in the conflict. That is why I provided an alternative source, an Israeli source, B'Tselem, whose statistics are arguably regarded as the most reliable of any source (although there are obviously always mismatches between sources when it comes to casualty stats for a host of reasons).

Response: My apparent lack of knowledge about the level of violence? I suppose my years of study in this field are worth nil. Again you are making assumptions now about my knowledge or lack of it. Rather than assuming maybe I was considering all angles (based on my own research experience), you instead chose to assume I made the statement out of a lack of knowledge. As a result of your assumption you chose to accuse me of poor form and reinforced this by citing additional material. Not being able to know what you assumed about me,I thereafter assumed you were doing so in order to advocate your own perspective since from my perspective it was unnecessary. I did however ask you to please tell me specifically where I was breaking any rules rather than broadly accusing me (I realize I am new here). This question went unanswered.

• • A third red flag was your reaction to that evidence, evidence presented for your benefit simply to assure you that there was nothing particularly surprising about the numbers. You said, "The B'tselem reports presented as a response to my concern seem to indicate your own non-compliance with WP:NOTADVOCATE under Soap-boxing. These reports are not relevant to the specific concern." and yet your stated concern was that someone had possibly fabricated statistics the killing of 1000+ Palestinian children covering a ~13 year period. The notion that presenting evidence from a high quality alternative source that is highly respected (outside of the right/far-right wing of Israeli politics) is "non-compliance with WP:NOTADVOCATE under Soap-boxing" was rather astonishing but consistent with what I have seen many times before from nationalist advocates. I almost walked away from the discussion right there.

Response: I believe again you misunderstood my intent with my accusation of you soap boxing. The Source is perfectly credible. I was not disputing that. Rather I saw your choice to reinforce with additional sources after accusing me as an indication of you soap-boxing.Yarron (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I could go on but there is probably little point. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Response: Again with an assumption. Contrary to your statement about making the decision to not form assumptions, this entire thread seems to be filled with them. And the results seem to be based largely on them. I am not interested in being accused based on your prior experiences for which I am not at fault. Personally I disagree that there is little point and have actually found this thread to an extent constructive. There seemed to be a large misunderstanding between us in the first accusation which is cleared up from this. You assumed I was Soap-boxing which based on your response led me to assume your were.

I came in realizing I would make mistakes with acceptable jargon, style and even rules. My requests to point out these errors is genuine, however obviously my assurances mean nothing since I seem to have to stand against your jaded history and your automatic belief that I am not new and an apparent 'advocate'. If I could prove against this I would. Since that cannot happen my only request is that if I should I make a faux pas notion, please inform me as to the specific issue rather than broadly applying reprimand that is non-constructive.

Once this ruling has been arbitrated, if I'm not banned, I will update my USER page to indicate that at this stage errors are more likely from an early learning curve rather than an agenda. Particularly since I do intend to remain involved even on contentious issues and don't want editors previous experiences to act as their guide for me.

Thank you for making your position clear. I only would rather you had made it clear earlier instead of during an arbitration.Yarron (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Warned.
  WP:1RR again, you will probably be blocked. I'm accepting your good faith but flawed interpretation of the policy. Read the policy to see how "revert" is defined. It is not just an "undo"; it is anything that undoes another editor's work. Think of it at its most simplistic as a change to the text, although some minor or non-substantive changes administrators have the discretion to ignore.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 00:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I notice that Yarron successfully diverted the discussion from the question of being "newbie" or not, by suggesting that Sean.hoyland warned Yarron in advance to anticipate a "storm coming", and is speaking upon anecdotal experience and preconceptions.

Yarron emphasizes his ignorence and lack of knowledge. Yet, his behaviour is not "newbie"-like.

I also notice that his pretended interpretation of the 1RR rule is very similar to that of User:Brewcrewer, the "other" editor who reverted the edit here. Brewcrewer warned me here for edits where I reverted once Brewcrewer's revert of my edit: [145] and [146]. --Wickey-nl (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Please inform me if the case is re-opened as a result of this additional allegation. Yarron (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [147]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [148] change the lead sentence again
2. [149] again
3. [150] re-added it and changed sentence on HPV
4. [151] In this edit they added the main template.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [152]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [153] and [154]

Comments:

• Advised user to self revert [155] User declined [156]
• User was just blocked for 48 hours with respect to harrassment pertaining to this article [157]. Further details are here [158]
  talk · contribs · email
  ) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense: see Wikipedia:Peer review/Cervix/archive1. I am working with User:Casliber and others to improve the article. Snowman (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Per here [159] again I advised that we should get consensus and allow someone else to make the change.

talk · contribs · email

) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I think he changed the last one out of keenness not malice - I did not see that as malicious - note that a few alternatives had been thrown up. I often edit by changing things live and having a look as we have a record. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I stated very clearly when he asked it he should change it that he should not. That he should wait for consensus to form and allow someone else to change it.

talk · contribs · email

) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

James,the last one doesn't cover the sentence in question. Also, see my note on the other page. The issue with the block was/is more complex and is not encapsulated by the word "harassment" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

That is the thing Cas, not all reverts need to pertain to the exact same sentence / issue in the article to count as a revert. One does not get to make three reverts to one aspect of the article and then three more reverts to the another aspect of the article and say "ah only make three reverts to this one sentence".

talk · contribs · email

) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Note that my edits to the cervix article had a tendency to improve the article. Snowman (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Some of them such as this one however do not improve the article [160]. Combat means to treat. There is no evidence that the HPV vaccine treats HPV infections. I requested a reliable source here [161] and one was never provided. You then proceeded to edit war over this statement even though I had provided three reliable source to back up the prior wording.
    talk · contribs · email
    ) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
• Note that two administrators did not agree with the action of administrator who blocked me back then. Snowman (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • • I see one did not agree with the block.
      talk · contribs · email
      ) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • If we look at the discussion here [162] I have provided three excellent sources to support that the HPV vaccine prevents HPV infection, the FDA, National Cancer Institute and Center For Disease Control. First he stated that they were not RS but crossed that out. Than he states "I think that you have not provided adequate RS to say that HPV vaccine can protect against all HPV strains" which was never the text we were trying to support. Rather than agreeing he brings up issues of breast cancer when the topic we are discussing is cervical cancer "The Cancer UK webpage goes on to say that "Doctors use various terms to describe DCIS, including pre invasive, non invasive, or intra ductal cancer." But these issues are probably best dealt with back at ANI.
    talk · contribs · email
    ) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
• Note.
  Jmh649's interpretation of policy is correct. I'm not happy with Snowmanradio's lack of understanding of the policy. At the same time, Snowman is a prolific editor and up until recently had a clean block log. I also think that his edits are not intended to be disruptive, although it would be better once one has been warned to restrict his contributions to the talk page. The issue of Nyttend's block and the disagreement among administrators demonstrate that this is a complex issue, and I'm disinclined to block for that and other reasons. However, Snowmanradio is warned that if he persists in reverting on the article, even with good intentions, he risks being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 20:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

There is active discussion going on talk page and all editors are offering suggestions. In fact, I've agreed mostly with Jmh649 and most of his issues stand. We are trying to move forward with two pairs of sentences now. As there is active disucssion a block would be punitive not preventative. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

talk · contribs · email

) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Page: Dan Bilzerian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rafael-1993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

The first of the five reverts is from a different SPI, and is here to show how the offending editor may also be involved in using multiple accounts. Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 22:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Page: Civilian casualty ratio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wickey-nl (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: These are the editor's edits in the last 24 hours to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict section of the article, which is within scope of the ARBPIA discretionary sanctions/restrictions.

1. [163]
2. [164]

The last edit is certainly a 1RR violation.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] The editor is obviously aware of 1RR, as he has just commented today on the report that led to the warning of User:Yarron for breaching 1RR on this very same article. As part of that comment, he notes that he has been warned about 1RR before, and indeed, see this:[165]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] This content is being discussed on the talk page. Talk:Civilian_casualty_ratio#Israeli.E2.80.93Palestinian_conflict_-_Line_lacks_credible_source

Comments:

An administrator who reviewed the previous complaint against Yarron already noted this 1RR violation: [166] — Preceding unsigned comment added by JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk • contribs) 17:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA 1RR rule at Civilian casualty ratio. I did leave a message at User talk:Wickey-nl explaining his apparent 1RR violation but his only reply just blamed Yarron and Brewcrewer and didn't even deny the violation. EdJohnston (talk

) 01:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Page: Paul Keating (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 187.17.52.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [167]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [168]
2. [169]
3. [170]
4. [171]
5. [172]
6. [173]
7. [174]
8. [175]
9. [176]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [177]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [178]

Comments:
Several more reversions, general incivility, no real engagement. --Pete (talk) 03:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

No real engagement! Haha, good one. I made a common sense edit. I left a clear edit summary. I further justified the edit on the talk page when requested, even though the person requesting it clearly had no actual interest in discussion. Not one person has bothered to respond sensibly. Skyring's edit summary of choice when reverting without discussion: "Yeah, I'm a huuuge fan of Keating. Talk it easy, mate. And he then accuses me of "no real engagement"! 187.17.52.174 (talk) 03:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

And yet, you have been warned that you were violating several policies, including

WP:3RR, yet you chose to ignore these warnings and continued attacking other editors. I'd also like to point out that being angry at others is not an excuse for this kind of behavior. Johnny338 (talk

) 03:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Still not a single rational or genuine response to my talk page discussion - people are just too desperate to warn and admonish I guess. 187.17.52.174 (talk) 03:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Did you even read the guidelines? You must understand, while anyone can technically edit Wikipedia, they need to follow certain rules and guidelines. Remind me again why you didn't wait until consensus was established. (Note: Feeling that the responses there were not "rational" or "genuine" is not an excuse to continually revert other editors). Johnny338 (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Removal of warnings and notifications here and here. --Pete (talk) 03:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Semiprotection is also something that wouldn't go astray here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

A response to the arguments presented on the article talk page certainly wouldn't go astray. Are you capable of giving one? 187.17.52.174 (talk) 03:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

(Non-partisan comment)It appears to me that there is a decent amount of heat all around regarding the content of this article. Perhaps full protection for a bit might cool some heads and bring about some consensus on the talk page. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 04:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 12 hours by User:Drmies. EdJohnston (talk) 04:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, now can someone revert to the previous edit? Timeshift (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• IP blocked for 12 hours for edit warring after what seems to be successful tag-team reverting by registered accounts, none of whom gave even a remotely explanatory edit summary. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and restored the article to where it was before the IP user edit warred over content, hopefully people can be a bit civil and get some good work done going forward :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 04:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Page: The Black Stallion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chromedomemalone (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. [179]
2. [180]
3. [181]

And not within 24 hours, but it started here:

1. [182]
2. [183] and probably same editor logged out.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [184]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Simple edit-warring over removal of a tag, discussion, if any, is in edit summaries. I reverted once, another user restored the other examples. Montanabw^(talk) 01:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

Contributions suggest this is a possible sockpuppet account also. Montanabw^(talk) 01:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Montanabw, I suggest an SPI, or more detail. Anyway, blocked for the edit warring, 31 hours. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Page: Quantum of Solace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Theironminer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [185]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [186]
2. [187]
3. [188]
4. [189]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [190]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [191]

Comments:

A new user has been trying to force their preferred version of text onto the article. Numerous requests have been made to them to use the talk page to discuss (via edit summary, talk page messages (twice) and the user's talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• WP:3RR as there were not four reverts in a 24-hour window. SchroCat, in the future, please list the diffs in order oldest first; thanks.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 00:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry Bbb23: I thought I had done - my mistake! Fingers crossed the user starts using the talk pages when they return. - SchroCat (talk) 05:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Page: Republika Srpska (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CarRadovan (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. [192]
2. [193]
3. [194]
4. [195]
5. [196]
6. [197]
7. [198]
8. [199]
9. [200]
10. [201]
11. [202]
12. [203]
13. [204]
14. [205]
15. [206]
16. [207]
17. [208]
18. [209]
19. [210]
20. [211]
21. [212]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [213]

Comments:

This user is edit warring against several other users, against the consensus on the talk page for several days now (21 main reverts since the 10.th of June), not accepting any other version than the one which fits his own point of view. The shown difflinks are just a part of all the done reverts with 6 reverts only in the last 24 hours. Seader (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours and please do not let the disruption carry on this long in the future. This person should have been warned and reported days ago. If he persists after the block, please let me know or file another report ASAP. Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

"do not let the disruption carry on this long in the future" ok. report next time will be earlier. I just had hope till the end that he will show hindsight. Kind regards Seader (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: [214]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [215]
2. [216]
3. [217]
4. [218]
5. [219]
6. [220]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [221]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [222]

Comments:
Arnitxe has been changing the information to reflect the European Union, not the US. It's not always exactly the same, but it always includes that. What I find funny is that the map is ambivalent--either interpretation could be right. Please note that User:Bushranger was the one who warned him, not me. He's also been on

22:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Page:

)

User being reported: Sp818330 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [225]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [226]
2. [227]
3. [228]
4. [229]
5. [230]
6. [231]
7. [232]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [233]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute: [234]

User is still reposting the identical information after warning(s) [235] Amortias (T)(C) 18:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Already blocked. Black Kite kite (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: 138.16.101.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [236]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [237]
2. [238]
3. [239]
4. [240]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [241]

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

Comments:
Just making whoever looks into this this that I'm aware ive reverted more than 3 times but with the intention of reverting vandalism. The reported editor is resorting to

) 21:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• WP:AIV. Edit summaries alone warrant a block, in my opinion. — MusikAnimal ^talk
  21:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

Francis Schonken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:28, 9 June 2014
2. 01:35, 12 June 2014
3. 05:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC) "/* General considerations */ this has taken long enough, see talk"
4. 19:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 613277205 by Obiwankenobi (talk) let that not keep you from trying to find a new consensus"
5. 12:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC) "/* General considerations */ extending application per
   WT:COP#cont'd
   "
6. 00:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC) "/* General considerations */ at least something we could agree on, see
   WT:COP#cont'd
   "

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [242] Warning by @Mike V:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 12:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC) "/* cont'd */ r"
2. 15:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC) "starting draft of revised Cop#N guideline"
3. 15:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Proposed language change to WP:COP#N */ refine"
4. 19:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Discussion */ r"
5. 19:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Discussion */ example of ellen"
6. 22:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Discussion */"
7. 12:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC) "/* cont'd */ r"
8. 13:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Proposed language change to WP:COP#N */ outdent"
9. 13:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC) "/* cont'd */ r"
10. 14:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC) "/* cont'd */ r"
11. 14:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC) "/* cont'd */ r"
12. 15:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC) "/* cont'd */ r"
13. 15:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC) "/* cont'd */ better words? not sure"
14. 16:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC) "/* cont'd */ r"
15. 17:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC) "/* cont'd */ r"

Comments:

Francis has continually attempted to remove a particular section of this guideline that he feels does not have consensus, namely language that says that this only applies to occupations. He believes it should have much broader application, including application to LGBT categories, which arises out of a dispute over the LGBT categories for Jodie Foster. This is a delicate area of policy, and there are some inconsistencies which Francis has identified (some he has fixed), but some of his changes, such as those he is trying to make here, have far-reaching consequences and should not be undertaken lightly. I have told him, again and again, that he does have consensus to make this set of changes here, this one particular phrase around occupations has been in the guideline for a year and represents widespread practice, and the change he is proposing would lead to removal of potentially hundreds or thousands of categories from thousands of biographies. Instead of hashing out agreeable language and engaging the broader community through for example a neutrally worded RFC, he continues to make edits and tweaks directly to the policy in question, claiming that he has the knowledge of true "consensus" on this matter and that I'm simply standing in the way. Some of his edits are reasonable and don't lead to dramatic changes, so I have not contested them, but others would lead to dramatically different rules for categorization of people. Others have not yet commented besides one, who said "it is a highly radical reworking of how categorisation currently works.", otherwise it has been a discussion between Francis and myself, but instead of continuing the engagement on the talk page he continually returns to edit the policy itself with self-invented compromises. He was already warned yesterday about edit warring, but has continued today with multiple additions and reverts.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@Obiwankenobi sorry if I misinterpreted your last reply on the talk page (17:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)): you said you were going to persue an enumerated list in the next talk page section (for which I had provided the direct link from the guideline page), and appeared to have no further comments on my last proposal before that comment (17:33, 18 June 2014)) --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you misinterpreted. I'm opposed to removing the "occupations" language until we hash out a complete solution, the same language you've tried to remove at least 4 or 5 times already. Indeed, we should probably not touch the guideline until we agree - and more importantly, get others to agree - on new refined language. If you revert your last change I will withdraw this report, provided we both promise to not make any further substantive changes to the guideline absent a conversation in which at least the two of us agree, and ideally several others.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

You said:

I think because there seems to be confusion on this issue, we are much better of enumerated cases where "standard" categories are applied, and cases where they aren't. That's what the section below attempts to do. (17:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC))

... and that's all you said on the content of my last proposal (17:33, 18 June 2014). Can we agree on that? There's nothing wrong in my assumption that was an agreement on the proposed change, which was linking to the "section below" as you called it (00:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC) "/* General considerations */ at least something we could agree on, see

WT:COP#cont'd

")

For the record, diff #3 #5 under header Diffs of the user's reverts above (12:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC) "/* General considerations */ extending application per

WT:COP#cont'd") is not by a long shot a revert. --Francis Schonken (talk

) 01:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Francis, my point was, we need to go beyond your proposed change, to a deeper enumeration. I don't agree with this creeping policy change, whereby we tweak little bits on the way to a better solution, especially if you remove important parts that have been deeply contested by me previously, as you know. Anyway, we don't need to have this discussion here, I'm asking you clearly to revert that last change and promise to not make further substantive changes to the policy in this domain absent clear consensus on the talk page, and I will withdraw this report. You've been continually shifting the goal posts and tweaking different parts and pasting long conversations which make it very hard for others to join. We need to have a simple set of changes we can ask other users to !vote on, not the constantly shifting ideas and various tweaks. And no, the fact that you posted something and I didn't immediately reply "nyet" is not consensus...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Re. "We need to have a simple set of changes we can ask other users to !vote on": right, go ahead,

Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people#Proposed language change to WP:COP#N is the place to discuss that. We don't need two different talk page sections discussing the same thing, both linked with separate "underdiscussion" tags from the guideline page. I think we can agree on that. --Francis Schonken (talk

) 02:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

nb, I added two earlier diffs where Francis attempted to remove the particular piece of language in question, around occupations, showing that even though each diff is different, attempted removal of this language has been a constant.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

These older ones were reverted by Obiwankenobi

Again, #5 under Diffs of the user's reverts above doesn't fit in that list.

And #6 appeared an agreement as discussed above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Francis, #5 was just an end-run around the 'notability only applies to occupations' argument we've been having, while on #6, do you honestly believe that, a short time after proposing a change which I have reverted on multiple occasions, my non-response can be suddenly be interpreted as consensus? I assume good faith, but why not demonstrate that good faith and self-revert since I've now made it abundantly clear that I disagree.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Re. #6 "non-response": Obiwankenobi gave a response, which appeared clear to me, as quoted & discussed above.

Re. #5 Whether that qualifies as a revert by a long shot I don't know. In that case I'm sorry. OTOH Obiwankenobi's response to that edit was a clear revert (going back to his preferred version), after Obiwankenobi had been warned on his talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Francis, do you want to de-escalate, or do you want to continue to defend your constant tweaks to policy here? The revert button is just up there. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

De-escalate seems best, to me

Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people#Proposed language change to WP:COP#N seems the way to go then. I defend my attempts at improvement. I don't defend the unindenting [243], I don't defend #5 if that could've been taken the wrong way. --Francis Schonken (talk

) 03:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

then please revert your last edit, and commit to not make further substantive changes to the policy page absent positive consensus. I will commit the same.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

No more reformatting of someone else's talk page edits, no more circumvention of behavioural policy (e.g. WP:CONSENSUS/WP:CANVAS), no more circumvention of WP:DEFINING, etc. thanks, that would be great. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Francis, if you have a complaint that I violated

WP:CANVASS, please bring it to appropriate board. This is the edit warring board, you have continually edit-warred your preferred version of policy, even against expressed consensus and widespread practice, I have been engaging with you on the talk page to find a solution but you continually get impatient and just move to make changes that you prefer. Again, for the last time, please revert your last change.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk

) 14:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Above I read "... commit to not make further substantive changes to the policy page absent positive consensus. I will commit the same." (my bolding). I'm OK with that when its understood that the way to find consensus is as described at

WP:CANVAS

. I am always committed to that, but am OK to redouble my efforts in that sense. Can we agree on that?

For instance what I like is to have content discussions on talk pages, not via edit summaries. Small effort imho, makes consensus-finding a lot swifter. Can we both commit to that? I can anyways. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I will commit to responding on talk and not just in edit summaries.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you want the underdiscussion tag on the WP:COP page to link to

1. WT:COP#Proposed changes
   , or,
2. WT:COP#Proposed language change to WP:COP#N
   , or,
3. two separate tags, one to #1, one to #2

(for me the choice would be #2, and close talk page section #1) --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Francis, this is not the place to discuss such things. Please revert your last change and we can continue the discussion on the page as requested.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@

WP:CONSENSUS

says more about how to contain a discussion than only not to discuss via edit summaries.

Trying to de-escalate: you may choose where to hold the discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

that's fine. Please revert and then point the discussion to the new section. Thanks.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 36 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Page: 2013–14 Turkish Basketball League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2013%E2%80%9314_Turkish_Basketball_League&diff=613661278&oldid=613660554
2. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2013%E2%80%9314_Turkish_Basketball_League&diff=613661278&oldid=613660914
3. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2013%E2%80%9314_Turkish_Basketball_League&diff=613661808&oldid=613661278
4. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2013%E2%80%9314_Turkish_Basketball_League&diff=613662677&oldid=613662321
5. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2013%E2%80%9314_Turkish_Basketball_League&diff=613662677&oldid=613662540

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

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

Comments:
Rivaner is a fanboy of Fenerbahce Sports Club and has been appointed by the club. He is following me and editing my edits every time. I warned him twice before bu he didn't care. I am fed up with this boy.

) 08:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I know by edit warring I am breaking a wikipedia policy but if you look through the history of the article that he shares, he is the one that starts the edit warring. Also if you look at the my "edit summaries" you will see my edits are justifed.( I am not repeating myself or making personal attacks to the other user). If you look at the final version of the article, you will clearly see what I was trying to achive. Also if you look at this edit of mine, you will see, I am the one -as happened before- making a compromise to stop edit warring.

He never joins the discussions on any talk page as well.(Examples can be seen here and here).

I have been dealing with this user since February as you can see from my request on Administrators' noticeboard/ incidents noticeboard here. What I wrote there really summarizes my situation with the user. I am not "copy pasting" that to here to keep things clean but if you take your time and read through it you will see all the evidince of all my claims there. Thanks for your time.

talk

) 08:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

Sky0000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC) "Deceased characters"
2. Consecutive edits made from 05:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC) to 05:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
   1. 05:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC) "This information is important, and Jorh"
   2. 05:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 613648546 by Sky0000 (talk)"
   3. 05:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC) "This information is important and Jorge Horan hasn't told me, where's article, where is written, that doesn't may be there"
3. 12:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC) "Wikipedia is not IMDb, people need to get information, also those who start watching at the half of the series."
4. 14:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC) "User Jorge Horan doesn't let people to get necessary information"
5. 16:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 613690985 by Solarra (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on
   TW
   )"
2. 14:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User also involved in similar Edit War here. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 16:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• WP:3RR in one article and edit warring in others.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 17:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Page: The Shock Doctrine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ubikwit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [244]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [245] 22:58 18 Jun restore sourced and relevant material
2. [246] 00:00 19 Jun that's a personal attack, restoring sourced material
3. [247] 13:37 19 Jun )eliminates too much detail. maybe could be more concise, but you can't have tags about "jargon" and not give the context for the adoption of terminology, etc
4. [248] 05:18 20 Jun restoring consensus version, claims regarding "Wikipedia's voice" violating NPOV are tendentious and don't merit wholesale reversion

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [249] 11:20 20 Jun [250] 22:30 19 Jun [251] 11:36 20 Jun

His response: [252] Two entirely different blocks of text were reverted, one your so-called BRD text, which has been reverted by two editors including myself. This is not the place for such postings. If you think you have a case, then take it to the EW board or revert the above post asking me to post here as a matter of fact.

Notice of discussion given [253] 13:02 20 Jun

Link: [254] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [255] and multiple other posts by myself and others

Comments:

Ubikwit asked that this EW report be filed, and seems to think that reverting "different words" does not count as "reverts" for the purpose of this board. I demurred. He is being notified instantly. Collect (talk) 13:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: The "synopsis" of the book asserted by Ubikwit to be "consensus" is 682 words long. The proposed edit which was asserted to be far too short is still 313 words for what the intent per the books Wikiproject says should be a "short summary" of any book. Collect (talk) 13:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• This complaint is an attempt on the part of the filer to win a content dispute.

The reverts relate to two separate deletions of a substantial amount of long standing text, with no legitimate basis or attempt to build consensus in the BRD process after they were re-reverted to restore the text.

The second revert I made was in response to being called a "stalker" in the edit summary, which was the sole rationale given for the revert, and the claim was completely unwarranted, per

WP:HARASS

.

Then Collect made his BRD edit, which another editor subsequently reverted and explained in no uncertain terms on the article talk page that the edit contained factual misrepresentation of the bookfirst here, then here.

That didn't stop the next revert of the restored long standing text with another vacuous edit summary 12 minutes later, ignoring the factual misrepresentation of the content of the errant text by Collect that was being reverted to here, with the edit summary, "this version has extensive problems which violate Wikipedia's core policies. If you want to discuss the aesthetics of the layout, or even be bold and change that, be my guest", and leaving a comment on the talk page that also didn't engage the BRD process properly or attempt to build consensus [256].

The talk page is informative. That revert followed an earlier revert with edit summary claiming NPOV violation, to which another editor replied here.

Lastly, I should mention that the reverts were not within a 24 hour period and there was no attempt on my part to game the system by making the fourth revert at the 31st hour mark from the first revert. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I largely second Ubikwit's comment, and suggest no action is taken here.

But if there does have to be sanctions, my view would be they are most deserved by Collect, for edit warring as part of a tag team. Collect omits to mention that prior to joining in the dispute, he had never edited this article before. The version Ubikwit was defending had been long standing since I originally added it back in 2008. The version Collect and others tried to force in blatantly misrepresented the source, the most glaring example of this is the claim that "Klein praises the World Bank and IMF." In fact, the book heavily criticizes both institutions.

There's a lot more that could be said for both sides, but as things might be calming down Im hoping this could be closed as no action. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Um -- I made one and only one edit here. I did not revert to any version other than my own specific cited BRD edit which meets the requirements of a "synopsis" and actually has a far higher readability index than the current version asserted to be "consensus". Accusing me of being part of a "tag team" is a personal attack, and I ask you retract that claim as being fully uncollegial. My edit had absolutely zero connection to the edits by other editors. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't agree with much you're saying here, but can sincerely apologize if the tag teaming suggestion came across as a personal attack. Im not here to attack anyone, and especially don't want to make an enemy of someone with your formidable reputation. How I wish Shock Doctrine had already been taken off my watch list... FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Warned.
  WP:3RR. Nonetheless, they edit-warred against several editors. I don't buy the tag team theory. Therefore, Ubikwit is warned that if they persist in reverting on the article for any reason, they risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 15:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Hgilbert

(Result: Blocked)

Page: Talk:Waldorf education (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ‎2605:e000:24c0:e400:b872:6fcf:770e:6a9c (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: first addition of material

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [257]

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

Comments:
Suspected sockpuppet of

• Blocked – for a period of one month by Dennis Brown.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

[[User:220.255.1.27] got into a huge edit war with three different editors (User:Pinethicket, User:Hbent, and me) on the article Village since June 17th 2014. Please block this IP and a series of IPs vandalizing the article as it appears to be dynamic. Backendgaming (talk) 01:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC) There is also a lot of sockpuppetry going on.

Suspected sockpuppets

• User:220.255.1.34
• User:220.255.2.85
• User:220.255.1.29
• User:220.255.1.22
• User:220.255.1.31
• User:220.255.1.55
• User:220.255.1.45

Please block all these IP sockpuppets vandalizing Village.

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC) ""

• Page protected (semi) for two weeks. This is blatant vandalism and should have been taken to
  WP:RFPP.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 01:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Page: Iggy Azalea discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

)

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: Talk:Iggy Azalea discography#Tables

Comments: Has made four revers on the same page within hours. Reached three edit warring over the same thing two days ago. The user has been blocked twice before for edit warring and it has begun to seem as a lack of competence.STATic message me! 00:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks due to consistent disruptive editing and edit warring on this page and others (this is user's fourth such block). Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Additional note that I've blocked the IP ConnieGB was edit warring with. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 613803532 by
   talk
   )quote mining does not exist in any formal dictionary slang or otherwords. Until it is found in one we should not post un verifiable material per wik"
2. 12:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC) "quote mining does not exist in any formal dictionary slang or otherwords. Until it is found in one we should not post un verifiable material per wikipedia rules"
3. 15:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 613678689 by Solarra (talk)"
4. 11:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 613677814 by
   talk
   )"
5. 11:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Lord Roem ~ (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Page: Motifs in the James Bond film series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SchroCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [258]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [259]
2. [260]
3. [261]
4. [262]
5. [263]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [264]

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

Comments:
Warning removed by User:SchroCat: [265]

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Page: Nox Arcana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 94.134.8.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

previous to edit war

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

contribs

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] The user is unsigned so I didn't leave anything on the talk page.

Comments:

I am requesting a rollback to this version of the page for Nox Arcana. While I have been editing another section, an unsigned editor 94.134.8.212 keeps reverting to remove music genres (Gothic, ethereal, dark wave) that have already been long established for this band, referenced by music reviews, other wiki editors including the wiki albums team, and can be ref'd at All Music Guide. The user has reverted multiple times, wiping out new content (including new refs to support the gothic and ethereal genres). Ebonyskye (talk) 00:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

This person adds fake reviews. None of these reviews uses "Ethereal wave" as a genre term. Of course i'll remove non-sourced nonsense. --94.134.8.212 (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Previous unsigned editor is now editing as [Special:Contributions/94.134.9.192|94.134.9.192]] removing term 'gothic' which is referenced multiple times. diff. This appears to be nothing more than vandalism. Ebonyskye (talk) 06:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• Warned both users. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Page

Foffa Bikes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC) "corrections since someone that keeps trying to slag our brand off keeps editing the entry to defame our company. 1) we are not an assembler, we are a designer. 2) our bikes are not made in China 3) our bikes go up to 700 pounds so are not inexpensive."
2. 17:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC) "how to stop getting the same people making the same irrelevant changes?"
3. 20:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC) "usual corrections from the usual reedit from our competitors trying to slag our brand off"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on
   TW
   )"
2. 12:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC) "/* June 2014 */"
3. 17:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC) "Final warning notice on
   TW
   )"
4. 20:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user is already blocked under their username Danifoffa for making legal threats and edit warring; their IP address was temporarily blocked but that has now expired, and the user is now editing the article about their company after repeated warnings to take any concerns to the talk page due to their conflict of interest. Aside from the fact they are evading their block, they have ignored these warnings. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked for the block evasion; there is still an outstanding indefinite block at Danifoffa. Kuru (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 613458371 by Cyberpower678 (talk If you won't believe the episode already aired then go to WatchCartoononline.com"
2. 20:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 613504026 by Cyberpower678 (talkIt's going to air in the UK this Saturday"
3. 12:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 613608643 by Cyberpower678 (talkThe episode is going to air in the UK today.)"
4. 13:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 613806327 by Ryulong (talkJust this once, please? I know Japan info is for unaired episode but for upcoming episode is English info.)"
5. 16:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 613812441 by Cyberpower678 (talkokay and by the way what's it?)"
6. 18:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 613834456 by Cyberpower678 (talkThe episode will be translated and that's that! Even though it's not aired yet stick with what you know )"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC) "/* XY summary */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has been told multiple times (through edit summaries and in a discussion on User talk:Cyberpower678/Archive 20#Next Episode about the practices in regards to translation, but edit warred while logged in and while logged out as 24.191.109.165 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• WP:3RR. Ryulong, please don't use capital letters in edit summaries.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 20:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

User:MelbourneStar

(Result: Blocked)

Page

Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 613918699 by MelbourneStar (talk)"
2. 08:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 613917976 by BilCat (talk)"
3. 08:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 613915471 by Thomas.W (Stop edit warring, if you don't like it try Britannia)"
4. 08:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 613912867 by Thomas.W (talk)"
5. 07:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 613902252 by Thomas.W (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC) "Level 4 warning re.
   HG
   )"
2. 08:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continues to add

08:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Materialscientist (talk) 09:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Page

Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC) "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I reverted once AGF and then once assuming vandalism, warned on talk page and finally requested temporary page protection. He/She continued to constantly edit/revert. This can also be seen in the article "Due process". (I couldn't select the reverts in Twinkle, however, by looking at the edit history it is pretty clear) QuartzReload (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

IP is already blocked for 72 hours for disruption. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Page

Cinderella (Disney character) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Joshuaj102003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 06:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 05:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 03:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Ethnicity */"

Comments:

More: [266], [267], [268] NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. Acroterion (talk) 11:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Page

1955 Turkish basketball withdrawal incident (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. 11:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "reverted vandalism"
2. 11:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "this was the match between Galatasaray and Fenerbahce. Players, officials and trainers should be known. If you remove something, please use talk page first."
3. 06:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "do not revert this. If you want to revert, first go to talk page. Remmeber! You did it first!"
4. 00:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "if it was not match-fixing, then what is match-fixing?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on
   TW
   )"
2. 11:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "/* June 2014 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 11:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC) on Talk:1955 Turkish basketball withdrawal incident "
   ←Created page with '==Roster for each side== How is who was on the roster for each side relevant to occurrence of the event? Alans1977 (talk
   ) 12:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)'"

Comments:

I'll withdraw this. Looks like an admin user Callanecc blocked them while I was in the middle of filling this. Alans1977 (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Page

Canadian soccer league system (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 16:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "i mentioned canadian usage. this is proper usage."
3. 16:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing. (
   TW
   )"
2. 16:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "/* June 2014 */ EC + wrong"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The editor is removing common name from multiple articles and edit warring to do so Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

There are multiple other articles where the editor has made this change and I won't edit war with the subject over them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Warned both editors. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

My edits were to correct errors introduced such as [[Association football|association football]] and

WP:REPEATLINKs. The other editor has been involved in three 3RR cases in the past few days. Walter Görlitz (talk

) 17:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Page

User talk:Ryulong (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Funnycoolman (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 15:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC) to 16:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
   1. 15:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Send back */"
   3. 16:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Send back */"
2. 16:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 614111189 by Ryulong (talkDeal with it)"
3. 16:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 16:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "not until you agree"
5. Consecutive edits made from 16:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC) to 16:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
   1. 16:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 16:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Accepted */"
   3. 16:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "/* June 2014 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User will not leave me alone after I removed his thread he started from my user talk page. This comes off after a block he had just served and also he resumed edit warring on the page he was originally blocked for edit warring on. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Warned and this also looks to be possible
  harassment since Ryulong has asked them to stop posting on their own talk page. Lord Roem ~ (talk
  ) 17:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Page

Michail Lountzis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

Rizlas p (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 01:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 01:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC) to 01:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
   1. 01:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 01:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "General note: Removing speedy deletion tags on
   TW
   )"
2. 01:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Removing speedy deletion tags on
   TW
   )"
3. 01:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Stale, editor has stopped. Though they've been warned enough that if this continues, they'll be blocked. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Josh Dallas: John Dallas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Also on Kelly Clarkson and Ginnifer Goodwin
User being reported: Winkelvi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since User:Winkelvi has come to my talk page repeatedly to threaten me over editing-warring when he has been doing so since June 15 — and also because he has threatened on my talk page — with two exclamation-point signs and one stop sign — that "you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly." Based on his own reasoning and behavior (which has included him telling me repeatedly to "go fuck myself" and similar phrasing), I bring this case here.

Previous version reverted to: Here is the status quo as of June 5: [269], which he changed on June 15 [270].

Despite an editor other than myself immediately restoring the status quo [271], he began edit-warring immediately after that [272] and this edit-warring has continued across Josh Dallas and the other two articles above. All I have tried to do is retain the status quo until consensus says otherwise. There is no consensus yet.

Diffs of the user's reverts: Since Winkelvi is listing things previous to this 24-hour period in his report above, it's only equitable I do the same

1. 16:59, 15 June 2014 [273]
2. 04:11, 22 June 2014 [274]
3. 15:03, 22 June 2014 [275]
4. 17:42, 23 June 2014 [276]
5. 20:16, 23 June 2014 [277]
6. 20:19, 23 June 2014 [278]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I provided warning, and he erased it with a highly uncivil edit summary [279]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Consolidated [here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ginnifer_Goodwin#BLP]

Comments:
During discussions, the article's status quo is supposed to remain and consensus arrived at for any change, especially a contentious one. He insists his interpretation of BLP is the only valid interpretation, and believes that means he's entitled to keep reverting to his preferred version. The issue is contentious since he's removing names of celebrities minor children even though those names have been released to the media by the parents themselves, in some cases on magazines covers, and are readily available to millions of readers/viewers through

newspapers, magazines and entertainment-news TV shows.

I bring this here based on his threat to bring me here through "you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule". --Tenebrae (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Likely a CYA and revenge report (he states, "I bring this here based on his threat to bring me here"). For details on my side of the issue, please see the following diff of my report (listed above this report) here: [280]. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 20:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Defending myself is not "revenge." You were the one returning obsessively to my talk page threatening me with a claim of which you yourself are guilty. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• This is the most brutally childish tit-for-tat filing ever. See
  WP:LAME the panda ₯’
  22:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• WP:BLPN for assistance the panda ₯’
  23:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Page

Josh Dallas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Also on Kelly Clarkson and Ginnifer Goodwin

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 613958489 by Winkelvi (talk) See talk-page discussion, rather than continuing edit-war with TWO other editors."
2. 20:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "No, we leave the extant, status quo version until there is consensus to change. BLP does not REQUIRE removal, and there is no consensus to hide a name already available to millions via magazines, newspaper and entertainment-news TV shows."
3. 20:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "According to Wikipedia policy, the status quo is supposed to remain. The status quo before you started this included the name."
4. 20:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "You are the one edit-warring, even though the status quo is supposed to remain, and you are now at 3 reverts here. Revert again,and you're over
   WP:3RR
   "

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"
2. 20:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"
3. 20:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 16:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC) on Talk:Ginnifer Goodwin "/* Response to edit summary here */ yes"

Comments:

Tenebrae has chosen to edit war rather than continue discussion and go with consensus. He has not violated 3RR but is engaging in edit warring and

) are all BLPs; they are obviously treated differently than non-BLP articles when it comes to content on living persons. Another, uninvolved editor, has also weighed in on the dispute at all three articles. Consensus is in favor of removing the contested content until a resolution is reached. I removed that content earlier today, Tenebrae chose to revert it all back in spite of the discussion on each article's talk page. Policy is clear on including names and identifying information on non-notable minor children of article subjects:

"The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced." Adding the name and exact birth date of a a non-notable low-profile minor child of a celebrity is not relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the article subject. Saying the child exists and giving a birth month and year is sufficient mention.

Further, I asked Tenebrae to stay off my talk page twice yesterday. He returned to post there twice more and today has posted there again [281]. He was already been warned by an administrator at AN/I about instigating incivility with me along with lack of respect here: [282] He was told to stop. The edit warring behavior and coming back to my talk page today is, in my estimation, a continuation of the behavior he was told to stop. My patience has been tested to the limit by his uncivil, battleground and

20:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikilevi is dissembling. I returned to his talk page only to post a 3RR warning and that I had begin this 3RR action, both of which were required of me to do. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

That is a complete misrepresentation; there is no requirement to threaten editors. After being told twice already to stay off my talk page, he should not have returned with anything other than a template or a notification. After I placed warning templates on his talk page, he chose to come to my talk page and threaten to report me. There was no notification at this point that he was planning to or had already done so: "You are the one promulgating an edit-war. If you revert again, you will be at three reverts. If you go over that, I guess we'll need to take this to

WP:3RR. Or I could go there now, based on your posts on my talk page saying 3RR can be broken in spirit without going over 3 reverts." His own words give the true story. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓

21:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, please. Here are the 3 messages I was required to put on his talk page. Any admin is welcome to see for himself if I was "threatening." I urge one to see for oneself at: [283], [284], [285]

And you can, as well, see his threats to me on my talk page

The "4" reverts he lists includes one that occurred before this 24-hour period. In that case, I'll go and add his own "4th" from yesterday to my report below. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

And since he's bringing the discussion of BLP policy here, I suppose I need to defend myself here. We're not talking about private minor children of notable but no-famous people. We are talking about the names of celebrities' minor children whose parents have announced their names to the media ... in some cases on magazine covers ... and which in our footnotes themselves are readily available to millions of readers/viewers through

WP:RS newspapers, magazines and entertainment-news TV shows. The suggestion that Wikipedia is able to or should keep "secret" Kim Kardashian's child North or Gwyneth Paltrow's child Apple is absurd. This a valid part of such subjects' biographies. --Tenebrae (talk

) 21:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Note for this and below: This dispute started at ANI [286], but I'm happy to walk away and let AN3 deal with it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 60 hours See below for Filer the panda ₯’ 23:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Sounds about right in both cases, as the AN3 case could have easily been avoided. I left a note on the ANI page. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: Tenebrae explained here that there was no

) 02:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

Ashumech527 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Etymology */"
2. 14:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Etymology */"
3. 03:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Etymology */"
4. 01:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Etymology */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on
   TW
   )"
2. 09:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "/* June 2014 */ ce"
3. 16:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Not technically 3RR in 24 hours, but has been reverted by 3 editors before I just reverted and several warnings, all ignored.

) 16:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. Particularly disruptive to revert again after the filing of this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Page: State Bar of Texas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lulaq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [287]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [288] 19:30 22 Jun
2. [289] 02:37 24 Jun
3. [290] 03:08 24 Jun
4. [291] 03:47 24 Jun
5. [292] 13:18 24 Jun
6. [293] 14:00 24 Jun

And also reverts at Charles Rangel where the documentation for Template:Infobox officeholder now reads: Where the use of "same district number" is used for determining "predecessor" and "successor" in any office, but where the area is so altered as to make such a "predecessor" or "successor" of little or no biographical value, the word "redistricted" should be used rather than using names of officeholders whose connection is accidental by virtue of district number, but unrelated to any election contests between officeholders.

1. [294] 03:02 24 Jun
2. [295] 13:30 24 Jun
3. [296] 13:49 24 Jun after Lulaq was directed to the template documentation

Notice given at [297]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [298] and [299]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:State_Bar_of_Texas concerns such material, as well as a BLP violation which has been removed, the template discussion was widely aired at Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder#RfC_on_successor.2Fpredecessor_where_a_district_is_not_reasonably_viewed_as_the_same_after_redistricting, and had been noted in edit summaries on the Rangel page (Been linked to a change in concensus concerning listing predecessors - await further chats on whether other changes made are ok, etc. as well as asking this editor to read the template documentation per Template:Infobox officeholder -- using "redistricted" instead of random other names, read the template discussion PLEASE before making an edit war here -- the change was fully discussed indeed to which the answer was I don't see ANY discussion on talk. In fact, I don't see ANY discussion on Talk in over 2 years although the template was specifically cited)

Comments:

I rather think managing to simultaneously carry on two edit wars at the same time may show a problem. Collect (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Response was [300] No, I'm not, but it does seem you're cyberstalking me to revert my edits. Lulaq (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC) and previously What the hell are you talking about? You are the one you is dangerously close to 3RR. I kept your edit, but asked you a question. Quit putting false and harassing warnings only wall per WP:HARASS. Thank you. Lulaq (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)]] Which would take some doing onmy part indeed as Lulaq appears to have actually followed me (The SBOT article was to fix a gross BLP violation mentioned at

) 14:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

−

Some of the edits cited are not reverts, but rather refinements. I have accepted correction on a lot of my edits and actually stripped out most of my original contributions. Other third editors are editing, while Collect is reverting and doing major section blanking. Self reverting my edits are not an option at this point, otherwise I would, because other third party editors seem to have accepted these refinements. Lulaq (talk) 14:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The BLP issue has been corrected, but that is not stopping Collect from harassing me. Lulaq (talk) 14:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Edits 29, 30, and 31 are not reverts but rather my attempt at refinement, which seem to have been accepted. I don't know why Collect is hell bent on multiple section blanks. Again, I can't revert my refinements at this time even as an olive branch without harming the article. While I initially made an UNINTENTIONAL BLP error, I corrected this as soon as I was pointed to policy a couple of days ago. This hasn't stopped Collect from holding a grudge. Lulaq (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You mean the "error" which you repeated? Meanwhile I have a total of 6 edits at SBOT (3 in a row, 2 in a row, and a single edit), while you appear to have 25 edits; I have a total of 4 edits on Rangel, while you have 6 in under a half a day. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Read

WP:NPAplease. As you were the one who followed me you charge of "harassment" is a teensy bit weak. And I trust you now note the "infobox officeholder" documentation is directly applicable to the Rangel BLP. BTW, "refinements" can absolutely still be "reverts" in case you failed to read the policy. Cheers. Collect (talk

) 14:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you're following good faith Collect. I refined a great MAJORITY of what I wrote, which is totally contrary to what you are attempting to imply here. I told you to discuss the specifics of the Charlie Rangel article on his talk page. This article is relevant to me since I live very close to his district. Lulaq (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You're upset that your section blanking edits were not accepted. I've felt the same way too, but I can't do anything about this now without harming the project. All controversial edits I made a couple days ago inadvertently were removed well before today, though initially I was visibly upset over it. Lulaq (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You mean the fully unsourced section? As in -- you feel that the silly Wikipedia rule about using sources does not apply? Really? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Um, please quit personally attacking me here. It seems you are still holding a grudge over an edit 2 days ago that has since been corrected and I'm not still disputing. You clearly have a vendetta against me and sound very personally pissed off at me quite frankly. Lulaq (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, please refer to Collect's talk page on his Charlie Rangel edits. Lulaq (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep -- where I was thanked for showing another editor the wording at the infobox officeholder page -- seems pretty clear from here. Pray tell though how my "vendetta" managed to force you to suddenly edit on the Rangel page which you had previously not edited? Collect (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Page: Template:Foreign relations of Mexico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AbelM7 (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]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AForeign_relations_of_Mexico&diff=612026050&oldid=607590814
2. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AForeign_relations_of_Mexico&diff=612048240&oldid=612026050
3. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AForeign_relations_of_Mexico&diff=612054488&oldid=612048240
4. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AForeign_relations_of_Mexico&diff=612061267&oldid=612054488
5. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AForeign_relations_of_Mexico&diff=612163296&oldid=612061267
6. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AForeign_relations_of_Mexico&diff=612674791&oldid=612346994
7. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AForeign_relations_of_Mexico&diff=612736558&oldid=612674791
8. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AForeign_relations_of_Mexico&diff=612791949&oldid=612778064
9. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AForeign_relations_of_Mexico&diff=614084307&oldid=613994281

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AbelM7

Comments:

), 23 June 2014, 15:03 (UTC)

User:Aquintero82 You never did responded to my talk page so we couldn't have seek a consensus. Each group on the foreign relations templates are divided into continents such as Asia, Africa, North America and not the combined continents such as the Americas, Eurasia, Afro-Eurasia. In my edits, I separated the combined landmass of the Americas into the continents of North America and South America in the group sections since none of the other sections uses combined landmasses such as Eurasia or Afro-Eurasia. You're saying it is "my" point of view like if it is mine exclusively but it is not. A continent is a large landmass and there are seven of them (technically it's six but Europe and Asia are divided at the Ural Mountains). I know people sometimes combined continents to form the Americas, Eurasia, and Afro-Eurasia but the foreign relations templates used continents in their groups, not the combined ones. Not all of the articles are the same in structure such as Template:Foreign relations of Kiribati which doesn't have the different continent groups. Who's to say you're not imposing your point of view of using combined continents instead of the singular ones? AbelM7 (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

And I used the examples set by Template:Foreign relations of the United States, Template:Foreign relations of Russia, and Template:Foreign relations of China since I know those would have more edits done and more foreign relations articles as oppose to Template:Foreign relations of Samoa. AbelM7 (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Warned both editors. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)