Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive257

My apologies again. @EdJohnston: if you're willing - I think this could get closed as Warned? Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Red Slash, It would be helpful to whichever admin closes this if you would agree to refrain from any more unilateral changes concerning the name

ISIS three times, which may possibly break the 1RR on everything related to the Syrian Civil War, and there is a long list of people who disagree with you. Continuing here with an indignant defence of your actions could make the closing admin think that a block is the only way to get your attention. I assume that's not the case. EdJohnston (talk

) 03:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

EdJohnston, can you help me please? I am so confused. I have reverted an edit on this twice in the last week (both today), which I'm pretty sure is nowhere near 3RR. I have no idea what rules, written or otherwise, I may have broken. I filed an RfC on Talk:ISIS, EdJohnston, and that'll have to do. Red Slash 03:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You changed

ISIS into a redirect to the Islamic State once on 14 September and then twice on 22 September (first one, second one). By doing so you joined in a long-running war that was begun by others. Each time your change was reverted by someone else. Your 22 September edits appear to break the 1RR on 'articles related to the Syrian Civil War, broadly construed'. EdJohnston (talk

) 03:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see.

ISIS, which was a disambiguation page when I found it. I was even less aware of any ongoing wars (except, sigh, for the actual ones). I will adapt my behavior. Red Slash

03:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Red Slash is warned for
  WP:Requested move process is available if anyone disagrees with how these articles are currently named. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 04:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

  Well, let's discuss on the talk page now like civilized people and unlike the people who are the subject of the Islamic State article. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Page

R. Kelly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Wearypoet (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 21:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC) to 22:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
   1. 21:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC) "BLP Vandalism"
   2. 22:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626533826 by Wearypoet (talk) I don't get why there's a "personal life" section when there's already a "life and career" section and why was the legal issues article deleted?"
   3. 22:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Legal issues= */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC) "Final warning notice on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC) "/* legal issues */"

Comments:

There are numerous edits in page history specifically dating back to about last month or so when I initially attempted to engage with the editor, at which point the disruptive editing became more agressive, and a number of similar edits prior; such as these from 2013 [13], [14], and so forth (some of the earliest edits are attempts at removal of this content). The editors talk page is littered with warnings about this behaviour.

Editor seems intent on unilaterally censoring material they

There's no edit war and dsprc never made an attempt to engage with me in meaningful discussion. That's a lie. Instead they constantly feel the need to revert everything I edit even though what I edit is correct information.

My issue with Sushuki12 is that they don't know how to edit correctly nor do they cite with sources. And most of the things they include are unnecessary hence why I informed them to create a separate article which they did. I've contributed a lot to the R. Kelly page. So I don't understand all this confusion. His page was fine before all of this. Wearypoet (talk) 08:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm so disappointed that it has come to this. I've contributed a lot on Wikipedia and dsprc had the audacity to attack me on my talk page but lie on here and claim that they have tried to engage in a discussion which is far from the truth. My edits were mainly because people wanted a "Personal life" section when Kelly's life is integrated into his career which is titled "Life and career" so I didn't understand the reason behind a "Personal life" section so I removed it. Then Sushuki12 decided to create a poorly written article about Aaliyah on R. Kelly's page so I removed it and informed them to create a separate article about the relationship between Kelly and Aaliyah. After a number of back and forth reverse edits, they decided to create the article and post a redirect link so at this point, there's a separate article about Kelly's "legal issues" so I thought why not remove the entire section since it was basically copy and pasted into a separate article? So I posted a redirect link under his "Life and career" section and it was fine until dsprc decided to revert every single thing that was edited back and Kelly's page was a mess. There was two separate "life" sections and all the edits I done (which were in no way harmful) were erased. So I reverted it back and dsprc had the audacity to say that I was going to be blocked but on here they said he tried to engage in discussion? Again, that is false. They're not even a moderator but he felt the need to attack me and say I was going to be blocked for a "war". There was no "war", I was simply fixing Kelly's page which I've been doing for quite some time now. Of course people are going to disagree but I'm not doing any harm by fixing his page and keeping it up to date. I've contributed a lot. If Sushuki12 had an issue with my edits then they should've tried to discuss with me but they didn't.

Everything was fine until Sushuki12 decided to start editing Kelly's page and dsprc reversing everyone's edits back to the original state with no regard about what was fixed.

There's no reason to block me when I've contributed a lot to that page. Wearypoet (talk) 08:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Result: The articles on

Page:

The above mentioned user undone sourced material provided by me, accusing me of spreading rumors/fringe theories.The issue is about Turkish alleged involvement.Predator ignored my offer to discuss it with other editors, instead undoing my edit without proper explanation.Catlemur (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I agreed to discuss this issue (If you are talking about your offer at the Talk page). But I believe that questionable information should be deleted until the compromise found.Predator2014 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• WP:BOOMERANG. Catlemur has reverted several users over the same edit the last three days and has violated the three-revert rule. No one other than Catlemur has more than three reverts total, so I've declined to block anyone else. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E}
  ) 20:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, I've been informed this is a 1RR article...timeout while I review this. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Catlemur (talk · contribs) and Predator2014 (talk · contribs) notified and notification logged of the 1RR restriction; Catlemur's block still for 3RR and not blocking Predator2014 due to his not having received notification of the sanctions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Page: Intercontinental Cup (football) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dantetheperuvian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: previous version

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: basically all article talk page.

Comments:

User:Dantetheperuvian was also reported in Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for insulting me 3 times. SLBedit (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you're taking the "insults" a little too much to heart - though I have placed a note on their talk page along with a proper warning. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you're taking the insults lightly but thanks for the warning. SLBedit (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, if "troll" or "fuck" are the worst things you're called during your tenure at Wikipedia - you'll be fine. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Page:

Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [16]
2. [17]
3. [18]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

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

Comments:
StanTheMan87 was created last month. [20] He keeps uploading images [21] after they get deleted. [22] Files that show unknown people he names them "Mohammed Omar" (wanted one-eyed spiritual leader of Taliban). See also [23] [24]. He uses images that he uploaded under fair use in multiple articles [25] when they should only be used in one article. [26] These images don't even qualify for Wikipedia because (1) they're uploaded without permission from author/owner and (2) there is no proof that the person is Mohammad Omar. It is only suggested that it may be him but that is not enough for encyclopedia purposes. People in the past have come forward to challenge the accuracy of the images. For example, Maulvi Hafizullah, a former protocol officer for the Taliban stated: "I looked at the photo and it was me. The CIA are blind and stupid." [27] The support that Maulvi Hafizullah is telling the truth. The guy in that particular image is wearing a pakol hat, Mullah Omar is from southern Afghanistan and nobody ever wears pakol hats in that region. It's like a cowboy hat being worn in New York City.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 02:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• WP:ANI about StanTheMan. You're not even involved in the edit war you're reporting. StanTheMan reverted three times. However, so did User:Maxforwind, whom you did not report. And Max's account was created only two days ago. There's a lot of weird stuff going on here, and, frankly, I'm not about to sort it out, but for the moment, I'm taking no action, although I'll leave the report open in case another administrator wants to look at it.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 05:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • My first edit was nominating an image for deletion, the image was deleted and StanTheMan87 re-uploaded it and in the process my first edit was deleted. You cannot see that deleted edit of mine. That's when I began reporting StanTheMan87. I have no relations to Maxforwind (talk · contribs), I was going to report him/her but got busy. I expected admins to block that person also by reporting one. I'm making constructive edits, if anyone is against this they can report me but this report is about StanTheMan87 who violated 3rr and is attacking me. [28] If you want to allow him to violate 3rr that's a different issue. Next you're going to tell me not to report anyone who violates Wikipedia policy. I'm a very serious person, I don't come here to play games.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 08:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
    • It's already been established that
      John O. Brennan in order to support his POV [40] then writing it off as "it was a joke" [41]. I just can't help but feel so sorry for those that have had to read the same nascent bullsh*t from Krzyhorse22 over and over again. If it is determined that really, I am in fact the problem here, then ban my IP from Wikipedia for 12+ months becuase these constant accusations are just really starting to irritate me. StanTheMan87 (talk
      ) 08:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:3RRNO. DocumentError (talk

) 06:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected (semi) for one month. StanTheMan has not breached
  WP:3RR. Therefore, I'm not blocking him, particularly with this rather muddled, messy history. Putting aside all the other accusations against Krzyhorse, I'm still absolutely baffled by his saying that he spoke to the director of the CIA. That's a rather absurd and "krazy" claim. I don't care that Krzyhorse says it's possible. It's a very long way from plausible or probable. However, at this point, I'm not prepared to block him, and this is not the appropriate venue for it, anyway.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 00:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Bbb23, you're not only an unfair person but also abusing admin power. Secondly, I don't know why you, StanTheMan87 and DocumentError keep repeating the phone call to CIA everywhere. On the day I said it I told everyone it was only a joke. Why is that such a big deal now and why can't it just be not mentioned anymore? Is it a crime to say such thing? What does calling CIA has to do with nominating image of Mohmmad Omar for deletion? StanTheMan87 clearly violated WP:3RR on Mohammed Omar but you say he didn't and instead threatening to block me. I'm confused what's going on here? I wish you didn't get involved here but another admin.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Don't be fatuous. If you later said it was a joke, please provide a diff for that statement. I'd kind of like to see the context and how long after making the initial comment you retracted it. BTW, as a joke, it's not particularly funny. As for breaching 3RR, you list only three reverts above, so how can you say Stan breached 3RR? And where did I threaten to block you? Not here, but if I did elsewhere, I'm sure I had good reason.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [43]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [44]
2. [45]
3. [46]
4. [47]
5. [48]
6. [49]

I added the word "Foundation" to a section heading because it is part of the organization's correct legal name. He reverted it back to the common name. I also added more information to the section for accuracy, and he did revert that, too. I was not going to keep reverting him, or I'd be the one in trouble.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning - I warned him on his Talk page about his disruptive editing: [[50]]

He responded by posting a warning to my Talk page: [51]

I was forced to file an ANI against him a few days ago for his relentless disruptions, hounding and civility violations, and requested a topic ban. [52] To date, there has not been a response from an admin. They left my previous ANI unresolved as well, which explains why he has become so emboldened.

Comments:

Please, I just want him to stop so I can do my job as an editor. He has made little to no edit contributions on any of the articles. I am the lead editor on the IPT article where he has also spitefully reverted my edits. He spends the majority of his time hawking talk pages, and hounding me. Atsme☯^Consult 06:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I have to point to this page here This is the Sreven Emerson Revision history page. While above you will see that Atsme has linked 6 revisions. If you check the Revision history you will only find 4. of these followed a revision by myself. Unless I'm mistaken sequential edits count as one. That would be 2 reverts. If I am mistaken about sequential edits counting as one then you will find Atsme herself is in violation as she has 4 reverts with two being sequential as well.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I would like to further add that Atsme has This on AfD and a merge proposal. It's very interesting seeking a consensus and removing material related to that consensus she is seeking. It's also interesting raising the same issue in multiple locations, ANI, AFD, and a merge proposal on a talk page linked to

Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers. If she can't get it one way can she get it another way. Really seems like gaming the system and I do to question if this 3RR report might abuse of process as outlined by Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system#Abuse_of_process.Serialjoepsycho (talk

) 07:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Learn to count. Atsme☯^Consult 07:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's count them shall we? Here again is the Steven Emerson revision history page. This is the first one. This and This is the second and third ones and they are sequential. This is the final one. Or where you not talking about my edits? We can count yours as well. Here's yours 1, 2, 3, and 4. Number 3 and 4 of yours are sequential.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC

Steven Emerson Revision history:

(cur | prev) 23:37, September 22, 2014‎ Serialjoepsycho (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50,703 bytes) (+56)‎ . . (Undid revision 626720711 by Atsme (talk) Reverting pov edit.)

(cur | prev) 23:29, September 22, 2014‎ Atsme (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50,647 bytes) (-56)‎ . . (Undid revision 626719697 by Serialjoepsycho (talk) Stop reverting correct information and replacing with incorrect information. You are edit warring.)

(cur | prev) 23:28, September 22, 2014‎ Atsme (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50,703 bytes) (+11)‎ . . (Stop. You are edit warring. The correct name is The Investigative Project on Terrorism FOUNDATION - an encyclopedia is not the place for commonality.)

(cur | prev) 23:15, September 22, 2014‎ Serialjoepsycho (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50,692 bytes) (+56)‎ . . (Partial revert)

(cur | prev) 23:00, September 22, 2014‎ Serialjoepsycho (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50,636 bytes) (+31)‎ . . (Undid revision 626717804 by Atsme (talk) because it is a POV change)

(cur | prev) 22:48, September 22, 2014‎ Atsme (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50,605 bytes) (-31)‎ . . (Undid revision 626717270 by Serialjoepsycho (talk) Leave it alone - the section is about the steps that led to the FOUNDATION, not about his dba, IPT)

(cur | prev) 22:41, September 22, 2014‎ Serialjoepsycho (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50,636 bytes) (+32)‎ . . (→‎The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation)

^^^^Atsme=3, Serialjoepsycho=4. My edits were to improve the article. Your edits were vandalism. Read the rule: Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. You refuse to accept responsibility for your actions even when you are caught red handed. And the only thing "interesting" about my Afd, ANI, and raising the same issue is the fact that you refuse to stop despite my good faith attempts to stop you. You have no boundaries, or respect for policy. Atsme☯^Consult 14:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You actually missed one. At 21:03, September 22, 2014‎ was your first revert. Here's a link to it again [53]. As far as vandalism I'm not aware of any. What I am aware of is that you are trying to get a consensus in multiple locations for

You are incorrect. That is not a revert. It was the first edit that YOU reverted. Your gaming strategy is not going to work here because the issue is clear, and accurately documented. Atsme☯^Consult 16:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

That is a revert. You did undo another editors work. That was the first of four in 24 hours. And BTW, The post I made on Atsme page, Check the next edit on her page [54].Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

That is not a revert. Since you don't edit or contribute prose to improve articles, you may not fully understand the process of editing to add, improve, and/or correct inaccuracies of factual, documented information. It has nothing do with POV. Review

WP:MOS. My first edit was to ADD the word "Foundation" to correct the section title. YOU reverted my edit. Do you not understand what "revert" means? I also added prose which you also reverted, and by doing so created disruption to the project despite the warnings. YOU were not only disruptive, you violated the 3RR with your 4th revert. Please allow the admins to do their job, and form their own conclusions based on the documentation. Atsme☯^Consult

17:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho and Atsme: you are both exhibiting an unwillingness to collaborate with each other. Neither of you have attempted to discuss this on the talk page. Atsme - your edit here removed sourced material. Further, the items that you're adding are unreferenced, and especially with articles such as this more often than not you're going to need some sourcing. Joe - just because you haven't actually reached 3RR yet, you can still be blocked for attempting to game the system and exhibiting edit warring behaviors. You both need to stop and go to the talk page. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a conversation going on. Multiple conversations going on. In Multiple locations about this subject. [AFD], Talk:Steven_Emerson, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Is_inaccurate_information_acceptable_for_inclusion_if_it_comes_from_a_self-published_source.3F, and probably a few other places. Her changes that I reverted go against any attempt at working towards a consensus. It is bad faith negotiating. In her first revert She removed the main page link to the investigative project on terrorism, she removed mention of it, and removed mention of it's 1995 start. All of which she is seeking a consensus for in one way or another in one of those 3 conversations. . I have no intention of gaming the system at all. I'm actually currently waiting for some of these discussions to close so that I can take this to ARBCOM without gaming the system.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

That may be why there's so much confusion between the two of you. Disputed content should be discussed on the article's talk page, and these multiple conversations are likely to confuse any such person. Try consolidating this stuff to the talk page. From what I can see, neither of you have attempted to discuss this disputed content, but then again, I'm only looking for the most recent edits to the talk page. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Dusti, his response was designed to purposely cause confusion, and it apparently worked. That's how he operates. I've had 7 months of his antics, and often wondered how I've been able to edit in spite of them. Please just look at the reverts - he has 4. In fact, look at the article's revision history for September 22, and you will quickly see he has violated the 3RR which begins with his revert directly following my first edit: [55]. Thank you. Atsme☯^Consult 19:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Dusti, there's one thing I forgot to add for clarification to what you said as follows: "Atsme - your edit here removed sourced material." Just so you'll know, I am the lead editor for the IPT article, and the section I edited in Steven Emerson was about his association with the IPTF. The version I removed was sourced using a self-published online blog Steven Emerson. My edit was made using a reliable secondary source [56]. So yes, I improved the article by correcting the information using a reliable source. Atsme☯^Consult 21:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps that's where the issues started

WP:OWN for further information. With just over 1,000 edits, I'm afraid you have a lot to learn. I suggest stepping back and trying to work with Serialjoepsycho on the talk page. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*}

23:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Not to be contrary, but there actually is such a term as "lead editor", and it's used in the following policy: Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing#Suggested_remedies. Its use is ubiquitous throughout Wiki, including FA reviews, and various project discussions. I guess we all have a lot to learn. I've actually learned more in 2 years of retirement just living life than I learned in 8 years of college. I can also say with experience that your suggestion for me to work with Joe is good in theory, but I seriously doubt he will ever allow it to work in practice, especially now. I've tried it for the past 5 months, and had to file an ANI twice. Believe me, I have better things to do with time than fight with an editor who behaves like a spoiled teenager. He has an agenda, and admitted so in writing: "My intent and purpose for you? I have none other than to stop your POV pushing agenda to accomplish your previously stated goal of whitewashing wikipedia of all mention of Islamophobia." [57] Here's another one: "Grief? To whom? You? It's justifiable. Like the "grief" I give you for removing the Islamophobia template when there is a consensus to keep it. Why would I put more energy in Roku achieving GA status?" [58]. Of course, he took everything I said out of context, and slipped in a lie or two, but that's just his style. He'll find a way to justify it, I'm sure. He has limited experience editing main space articles, and there are a lot of things he simply doesn't know, but he thinks he does. I'm afraid your decision may have emboldened him even more to keep hounding and taunting me, and violating policy. As long as he can keep convincing admins what he did was "justified", he'll keep getting away with it. But you're right - I still have a lot to learn because the difference between right and wrong has changed considerably since I was a kid, and that's one revert I would gladly welcome. Thanks for your time in this matter. Atsme☯^Consult 03:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Both editors warned. There is no 3RR violation at present but this appears to be a long-running edit war. Continued reverts in either direction may lead to a block without notice, unless there is a clearly understandable consensus for the change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [59]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [60]
2. [61]
3. [62]
4. [63]
5. [64]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [66] and [67]

Comments:
This is not a 3RR report but a general edit-warring report. User:Ciller is a single-purpose account who works at the station KRBK, and is persistently reinserting a list of non-notable names despite numerous explanations why they don't belong as well as links to discussions showing that yes, this is a consensus and not just an editor or two with a vendetta or, ironically, ownership of the article. The editor has made no attempt whatsoever to use the article talk page, despite numerous requests to do so.[68][69][70][71] - Aoidh (talk) 12:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours by User:HJ Mitchell for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Page: Hit the Deck (1955 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 r″everted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [72]
2. [73]
3. [74]
4. [75]
5. [76]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [78]
2. [79]
3. [80]

Note that there's been no response from the user.

Comments: I originally reported a similar issue a couple of months ago. I've tried to discuss this with the editor on their talkpage, but apparently I'm "banned" from that page and every attempt to enagage is met with a revert. On the article in question, admin Philg88 also reverted the change stating "Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout "Notes" should be used if there are any, but not for references". Phil has also raised this issue on BMK's talkpage, but with no repsonse. Phil also raised the issue of 4 different editor's posts being removed while trying to discuss issues with this editor. After consulting with Phil, I'm at a loss of what to do, hence bringing this here. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Lugnuts' basic position is that MOS does not allow the References/Notes formatting, and therefore he is justified in edit-warring to remove it from articles. In point of fact, MOS does not support any specific formatting: it describes several possibilities, and leaves the choice open to editors. I've pointed this out in various edit summaries, but this has not deterred Lugnuts from edit-warring on a number of articles in (erroneous) support of MOS, an action which ArbCom has specifically warned against in a number of decisions.

As for removing Lugnuts' posts form my web page, this is clearly within my purview. His contributions have not been welcome there for quite a while. For many years, I have found Lugnuts to be an aggressively obnoxious editor -- one can see why simply by looking at his user pages -- and do not wish to have his contributions on my talk page. His behavior has never been egregious enough to justify any attempt to have him sanctioned (Wikipedia is big enough to allow even aggresively obnoxious editors to participate), but he does make any interaction with him distinctly unpleasant, despite the excellent Eddie Haskell imitation he's doing in his comment above.

Concerning discussion of this specific issue, he and I have been through the discussion numerous times in the past - of which Lugnuts feigns lack of memory - so I did not, and do not, think it would be profitable to discuss it again, at least as long as he continues to labor under the incorrect premise that he is supporting MOS.

(I do not think this issue is worth the energy it would take to dig up specific diffs, but I will do so on request of an admin.) BMK (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

And now when offered some friendly advice by Philg88, BMK reverts that too and removes the notice of this discussion. Beyond My Ken - now that Isaidnoway has also removed your edit on the article citing the MOS, are you going to revert him, without discussion, too? Comments in edit summaries? Please. You know how to discuss things like an adult via the talkpage(s) in question, so why have you not done so? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Does Lugnuts really think it is appropriate to use this forum to attempt to litigate how I maintain my user page? And what, I wonder, does he think the purpose of an edit summary is, except to communicate with other users? BMK (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Just pointing out that you've been offered advice by other users and you choose to ignore them. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment: It appears that User:Beyond My Ken has reverted four times on 19 September at Hit the Deck (1955 film) beginning at 09:03 and these reverts are just one episode in a long-running dispute. One option is a block. BMK, will you make an offer to pursue dispute resolution to avoid a block? For example, agree to open an RfC and promise to accept the outcome? EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Ed, of course I have no desire to be blocked, and would consider an RfC/U were it not for my long time observation that that vehicle is almost entirely ineffective, and is very often used for prosecuting old grievances rather than for a frank discussion between editors aimed at compromise and consensus. Also, how can I possibly promise to "accept the outcome" without knowing what the outcome is? These things can go every which way, as I'm sure you know, and I'm not going to commit myself to accepting what could become a run-away attempt at petty retribution. I would be willing to promise to take the outcome of a well-focused and disciplined RfC/U seriously, though.

It also concerns me somewhat that you're addressing your comments only to me, without dealing with the equivalent "bright line violation" (as noted below) of Lugnuts. I'd be more inclined to agree to some sort of dispute resolution if I thought things were being dealt with even-handedly. BMK (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

To say you'll accept the outcome of an RfC only if it says the right thing is like saying you won't accept it. (I asked for a content RfC, not an RFCU). I think admins should block *you* rather than Lugnuts because you have signalled you will keep up this battle indefinitely, while Lugnuts wants to pursue discussion (which you evade with every possible excuse). EdJohnston (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Bright line violation with edits after warning. BMK's comments avoid the 3RR issue and complain about Lugnut's EW (two to tango) or divert to talk page maintenance. Lugnuts is also a bright line violation of 3RR; Lugnuts gave the warning and continued to revert the article. BMK does have history of imposing particular style on articles and has been blocked for 3RR earlier this year on style EW; there's also an ownership flavor in the edit comment at No Other Woman (1933 film) here. Unknowingly, I crossed paths with BMK's similar format changes at Midway Atoll where BMK had reformatted sections.[81] I reverted some of BMK's explicit character formatting to the previously existing heading styles. Glrx (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)