Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive265

Page: Five Nights at Freddy's 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: multiple instances

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [1]
2. [2] (reverting a revert of previous revert)
3. [3]
4. [4]
5. [5]
6. [6] (which is a partial revert of this change)
7. [7] (partial revert of this page)
8. Edit: 3 more reverts since filing this report:
9. [8]
10. [9]
11. [10]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User's talk page is protected, put warning on article talk page

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

Comments:
Edit warring

--107.15.41.141 (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

This article is subject to tons and tons and tons of fan speculation. I've also been gamed into this by a banned user trying to get me blocked. Also of note is that this IP left me a threat that had to be oversighted. This should be shut down and the article semi-protected (as I have requested multiple times to end the vandalism and unsourced edits) so established editors can work on it properly.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

First edit is a revert, this is reverting a banned user which is an exemption to 3RR, part of this is also reverting a banned user which is exempt from 3RR, a revert, a revert, this is not a revert at all but a rewrite, this is also not a revert at all but another rewrite, another exemption from 3RR, partial self-revert to reinclude content that was removed in prior edit that is not a revert anyway, probably a revert but I went to the talk page. There was no "attempt to resolve on the article talk page" as the edit brought up is an edit summary made by a banned user's sockpuppet so this whole thing should be thrown out. 107.15.41.141 is an IP operated by a Gamergate troll who is trying to get me banned through any means necessary.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

First, a minor point. The IP's edits were rev/del'd, not oversighted. Second, who is the banned user?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Fine, revdel. The Israeli IPs (the 31 ones) I believe belong to user:Wiki-star/User:Dragonron who just reverts me for the sake of reverting me rather than any actual interest in the topic seeing as he reverted me on completely unrelated pages.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, I've reported the IPs because of the reverts to items that were not Five Nights at Freddy's 2 but checkuser isn't going to solve anything with that new evidence.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe he's referencing this sockpuppet investigation. He's concluded the investigation on his own apparently, allowing him to exceed 3RR. Even discounting the reverts of the alleged banned user, I believe he's still exceeded 3RR. Ryulong, can you please clarify what you mean by "probably a revert but I went to the talk page" -- I see don't see recent contributions by you to the talk page. And please keep your comments civil. -- 107.15.41.141 (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I went to the user talk page of Spidervenom123 to leave him a message telling him that his edits are unwarranted because I left him an identical message 5 months ago regarding the other game.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Now he's apparently followed me to unrelated pages to revert my comments in a discussion he was not involved in?? 107.15.41.141 (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

That was trolling on your half, plain and simple, just as you've done across the project.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't see the point in continuing this conversation beyond argument for argument sake; admins (or whoever reviews these requests) you have my evidence, if you have further questions I will attempt to address them. -- 107.15.41.141 (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

How is this attempt at being a strawman "SJW" not trolling?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Recommend review of IP's contributons. There's very few 'main space' edits & mostly drama.

WP:NOTHERE, might be considered. GoodDay (talk

) 00:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, because no one in good faith notifies every editor I've reverted in the past 24 hours of this thread [12], [13] (there are others but the IP made the pages new so there's no diff).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with procedure in these proceedings, I was not involved in the edit war so I thought it relevant to notify the involved editors. Ryulong went to each of these user's pages and removed my notification. He appears to be "following" me around wikipedia and reverting my edits, is this permitted? Please advise. -- 107.15.41.141 (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

There's no reason to notify anyone else about this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not often participate in discussions on this board but I have two observations. Ryulong is being baited and Ryulong should know how to not take the bait.

03:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Chillum, I agree 100%. The question is, what are we going to do? Block for edit warring which seems to have happened? (But I'll want Bbb23 to confirm.) Block the IP for dramah mongering even though they've made a few valid article edits? Drmies (talk
  ) 03:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
• Well then get rid of the fisherman because he keeps blowing up my notifications when he restores his invalid messages across the project. I'm obviously being baited but I have to respond to this shit so I don't get blocked for being baited in the first place. Half of the edits hes pointed out are not reverts. Then others are exempt from 3RR.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
• Admins, can you please advise on this issue: Ryulong has reverted my notification on these users' talk pages multiple times. In addition, he reverted my removal of his "instructions" from my own talk page. Is this permitted? -- 107.15.41.141 (talk) 03:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

  Every time you do it I get notified because you've linked to my talk page and I asked you to stop but you clearly haven't. You are the definition of

  WP:NOTHERE.—Ryūlóng (琉竜

  ) 03:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

  Everyone doesn't have to be notified - only the user being reported. Further, his removal of any "warnings" and such on his talk page is an acknowledgement that he's gotten the message and he has the right to remove them. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstand, he removed the notifications I placed on OTHER users' talk pages, multiple times. In addition, he reverted my removal of HIS notification on MY talk page. I hope that clarifies. Is this permitted? -- 03:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Ryulong, that was foolish. I have blocked you for three hours on the minor matter of edit warring on the IP's talk page (a clear-cut case, where you disregarded their request you stay the hell away) and the notifications. That there may be no requirement that they notify other involved parties doesn't mean that they can't--frankly, I'm surprised that you'd make such a big deal out of something like that, but that's what EW is often about.
  Chillum, Bbb23, your advice on the larger matter is appreciated. Drmies (talk
  ) 03:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Is there any objection to me restoring these notices and reverting my talk page? -- 107.15.41.141 (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

For the record I have blocked this IP. The recent contributions from this IP show a bad faith and successful attempt at disruption and little to no effort to create an encyclopedia. As always my talk page is open for discussion.

03:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Well, another admin beat me to it: yes, after the latest edits I was going over there for a NOTHERE block. Thanks Chillum. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Given recent history I think it is a rotating IP who is reoccurring as such I used a short block. I am watching the IP though and if the same person resumes I will increase the next block.
  Chillum
  03:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry everyone, but I was busy doing bad things, you know like eating dinner, watching a movie, terrible things like that. Looks like you sorted it all out. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Submitter blocked 72 hours by
  User:Chillum, per "anon IP engaging in disruptive baiting, not here to write an encyclopedia". EdJohnston (talk
  ) 19:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• User being reported: AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  
• Page: Sangram Singh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This editor is edit-warring on

on suspicion that he is reverting copyright violations, I see it as mere content dispute, the information being removed which I personally favour. He claims it is copy-pasted from the source but the source is reliable and the info can easily be rewritten and redacted, not a legitimate excuse for blanking.

• 1st
• 2nd
• 3rd
• 4th

94.197.46.68 (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I was just in the process of reporting this IP at WP:ANI for repeated violations of copyright. If the IP wants to rewrite the content, he/she can - but we DO NOT include copyright-violating content in artices, ever.

It should be noted that this IP appears to have followed me from the Vivek Murthy article, where I had reverted the addition of an image clearly copied without attribution, and in violation of copyright, from the Washington Times. [[14]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs)

For closing admin: bottom line: 3RR has been violated and at the time of my post, the defendant has not self-reverted and this is compelling evidence of edit-warring in that the accused has no intention of standing back. --94.197.46.68 (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The IP clearly posted here to harass Andy and cares little about copyright violations. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Two things, if the witness testifying for the accused has any proof of the allegation then may he take it to the appropriate project page, otherwise if he has evidence that 3RR has not been violated then may he present that here. Thank you. --94.197.46.68 (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Fact: the material in the Sangram Singh article was copy-pasted from the sources cited, in violation of copyright. Fact: removals of copyright violations are exempt from

WP:3RR. Fact: repeated violations of copyright aren't exempt... AndyTheGrump (talk

) 19:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

All right then, where is the evidence that it is a copyvio? 94.197.46.68 (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

If you actually checked the links, you'd see that text was copied from linked pages. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The IP has continued to insert the image into the Vivek Murthy article, despite the warning template on the image page (both on Wikipedia[15] and Commons [16]) Since it seems apparent that this IP has no intention of complying with policy, I suggest a substantial block is called for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Result: Submitter blocked 5 days for copyright violations. The photo of Vivek Murthy was published in the Washington Times and there is no evidence that it has been made free for our use. Regarding the IP's statement, "the info can easily be rewritten and redacted". That is not how copyright is handled here. The material should not even go into the edit history if it's copyrighted text. EdJohnston (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Page: Template:Umbrella Movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Lmmnhn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
UU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [17]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [18]
2. [19]
3. [20]
4. [21]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22][23]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24]

Comments:
I was just uninvolved. I warned them about violating the rule. --George Ho (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Note. The warning came well after the edit war. However, in addition to the reported article, they both also violated
  WP:3RR at Template:Hong Kong political parties. Actually, I think the only reason it stopped is because Lmmnhn did the last reverts at both templates and UU hasn't edited anything since that time.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 06:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Page

Passive smoking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 636479616 by MastCell (talk)"
2. 17:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637188906 by Yobol (talk) Simple edits like this make the page look more objective. Nobody like smoking and second smoke, but this page look like a rant and not scientific."
3. 17:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637190657 by Yobol (talk) you mean the seriously skewered talk page with the group mentality? I am helping you make your page look more rational. I do not smoke and I do not endorse it."
4. 17:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637191233 by Zad68 (talk) I am responding to criticisms of this page and am trying to lesson the lack of objectiveness. I can do this all day."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Most recent edit comment says they "could do this all day" Yobol (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Editor has reverted twice more since this report filed. Yobol (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Page: Talk:Vani Hari (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 66.87.121.63 (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 placing personal attack on Talk page
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [lhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A66.87.121.63&diff=637329197&oldid=637328592 dif] Diff of NPA warning: dif

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

Comments:

User is making personal attacks on Talk pages and edit warring to keep them in. Please block. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

User Jytdog is harassing and misconstruing policy per C.Fred at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Tag-team_.2F_organized_abuse_by_User:Elaqueate_and_User:Guerillero_to_WP:OWN_Vani_Hari, the discussion is appropriate to the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.121.63 (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC) =

Note IP was blocked for socking. See this dif. Withdrawn. Jytdog (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: [25]

In my previous complaint, anonymous IPs were reverting the Hi-5 section "reasons for leaving", which the RFC discussion had agreed to remove and incorporate into the History section since the former section was unsourced and not appropriate for the band members section. Since then the article was submitted for RPP and protected for some days.

A contributor has been actively working with the new section, however, today, decided that they wanted the original "reasons for leaving" section back and has restored the article to that state.

I have attempted to remove the section again but the user has reverted multiple times and I have reached my limit on how to enforce this.

EDIT #1: [26]

my responses: [27]

EDIT #2: [28]

my response and talk page warning: [29]

EDIT #3: [30]

my response and final warning: [31]

EDIT #4 (user decides to tell me not to delete this information and that it is correct): [32]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33] but he has since erased this [34]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [Talk:Hi-5_(Australian_band)#RfC:_Reorganize_band_members_section original discussion]

Comments:

Thanks for your time. -AngusWOOF (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours De728631 (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: not applicable, since none of the reverts are going all the way back

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [35] reverts my edit here
2. [36] reverts my edit here
3. [37] reverts my edit here (I added a cleanup tag, and it was removed six minutes later, before I had time to explain it)
4. [38] reverts my edit here (I forgot that I'd removed the same thing earlier)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: no warning given in this incident, but Jytdog was just warned yesterday for edit-warring somewhere else.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion here. I've not re-reverted anything, except for the unintentional one in my fourth pair of diffs above.

Comments:

Uncalled for, we are discussing things on the Talk page. Nyytend has been going through and making lots of changes, some fine, some not. I had zero intention of bringing him here and am surprised by this. The edit warring notice elsewhere is not relevant to this discussion. So no warning. Nyytend please withdraw this or we are both liable to be blocked. Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC) Difs by Nyytend:

• removes sourced content that was valid per
  WP:PSCI
• dif removing established, sourced content
• again remove sourced, to the point content
• removes content again
• there is more but that is plenty. Jytdog (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

There's a major difference between simply removing content and actively reverting someone. 3RR applies to situations when you hit the undo button or actively restore something someone else removed; that happened five times here, and only one of them (Jytdog's final diff) was done by me. Nyttend (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog's been doing this quite actively, and has been trolling discussions trying to get users who question his edits banned as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.120.162 (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I learned of this incident from a report at

WP:ANI (section "Tag-team / organized abuse by User:Elaqueate and User:Guerillero to WP:OWN Vani Hari") by an IP who was clearly the same person as this IP. Time for a rangeblock. Nyttend (talk

) 18:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

note - user above is a sock that has now been blocked here - was writing personal attacks at

WP:TPG. Jytdog (talk

) 21:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

From a quick look it seems that both User:Jytdog and User:Nyttend may be edit warring. My proposal is that both Jytdog and Nyttend make a voluntary agreement to not edit the article again for five days. That would save 3RR admins the effort to scrutinize all these diffs and apply the exact letter of the law as to whether 3RR has been violated. There seems to be an active discussion on Talk. The IP comments just above appear to be from a sock from the 66.87.* range who has just been dealt with at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

How have I been edit-warring? I've done a lot of rearranging, including cutting some bits as linked above, but they were there before I came along; I would have done them all at once if I'd felt like it. Significantly different from repeatedly hitting the "undo" button. Nyttend (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me that Jytdog made reverts at 15:00, 15:02, 15:04, 15:29, 15:49, 15:51 and 17:25. Nyttend, you are the only other person editing during this time period. Do you believe that *he* is reverting while all you are doing are normal edits? Per

WP:EW, "a revert means undoing the actions of other editors", and isn't limited only to the Undo button. EdJohnston (talk

) 18:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite possible. Imagine that you find an article, and you go around making edits to it. Someone else comes along and hits the "undo" button to revert a bunch of the edits you've made: if that happens enough times, the other guy has broken the three-revert rule, regardless of whether you have. Note that my first diff wasn't the Undo button ("add deleted criticism where it belongs"), but it was a revert anyway. I could give you a much more detailed explanation if requested, but a simple check of the page history will demonstrate that I wasn't going around removing his additions, restoring his removals, or putting back his modifications. I would appreciate knowing precisely which edits involve actual reversion: you have the one re-removing the surgeon, and this because I thought he accidentally removed more than intended in a previous edit (as far as I can tell, Jytdog didn't disagree), but that's all. Nyttend (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

As I mentioned there is a certain "ick" factor for me to getting hauled to 3RR without warning, and in my view Nyttend and I were having a reasonably good and civil communication going on both Talk and in edit notes. I was not unhappy with Nyttend's editing and only provided diffs for leverage in this discussion, to be frank. I am sorry that Nyttend found my behavior to violate the spirit and letter of EDITWAR. I am not emotionally invested in it in terms of the work I do here, and have my hands full with articles I care about (not to mention the haters in peanut gallery sandwiching this discussion.) I would be happy to walk away from the Vani Hari article and unwatch it, and accept any warning given. Would be happier to keep my hand in but the last thing I need is another admin's ire. Acceptable? Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Jytdog has been edit-warring on multiple pages including Oseltamivir and Vani Hari. He is trying to add links to self-published blogs and it's time for an administrator to take action against Jytdog's advocacy for these pseudoscientific publications -A1candidate (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment – Nyttend's bulk deletions here are far from consensus (see the extensive talk: coverage) Jytdog is merely the editor who got to them first. This is far from the sort of edit-warring deserving sanction (even on Nyttend's part). Andy Dingley (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Result: The Vani Hari article has been protected 24 hours by User:Fluffernutter. If anyone thinks that Jytdog's edits on the Oseltamivir article amount to edit warring, file a regular 3RR report on that article and supply diffs. If a new war breaks out at Vani Hari when protection expires the next admin might decide that blocks are needed. EdJohnston (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Page: Vani Hari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jytdog (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. [39]
2. [40]
3. [41]
4. [42]

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

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

Comments:

User has both committed 3RR and repeatedly made incivil comments and threats.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.120.162 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 9 December 2014‎ (UTC)

Note - this is related to report above. Seems to be another SOCK. I have done nothing uncivil; i have removed personal attacks per

WP:TPG Jytdog (talk

) 16:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Note - filer of this action has been blocked as a sock - see here. Jytdog (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Result: The submitter has been blocked as a sock. EdJohnston (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Page

Template:Spain squad 2014 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Sockpuppet of Gringoladomenega Raymond "Giggs" Ko 05:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It is the same Ip of 187.5.175.206 115ash^→(☏) 15:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC).

• Page protected — It looks like that blocked user is editing via the ips (and no other ips are making edits on the page anyway). --slakr^\ talk / 01:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Page: Template:New York Giants roster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 72.178.86.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:New_York_Giants_roster&oldid=637246703

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:New_York_Giants_roster&oldid=637261822
2. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:New_York_Giants_roster&oldid=637086480
3. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:New_York_Giants_roster&oldid=637086657
4. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:New_York_Giants_roster&oldid=637410376

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

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

Comments:

) 02:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC) Continually changes information with wrong, unsourced information.

• No violation I see one revert from the IP and that's it. I see no warning. This report is also malformed. I'm placing warnings on both your pages for civility. only (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Page: Peak oil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gravuritas (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. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

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

Comments:
This is an on-going problem:

Edit warring on same page in October 2013: [48] [49]

Edit warring on same page in June 2014: [50] [51] [52]

Edit warring on same page September 2014: [53] [54] 108.91.175.42 (talk) 06:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Page: The Danse Society (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tarnhall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [55]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [56]
2. [57]
3. [58]
4. [59]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [From this page ^[1] you can see that the user assumes that registering a trademark on pre-existing copyrights gives him the right to totally delete the previous 4 years of history of the reformed band as stated in the official website www.thedansesociety.com when such user was in the band before he resigned in writing on the 29th January 2014 during the tour with no notice. The same user I am reporting is not only in breach of copyright but is also adding facts not relevant to the band history, is spreading false personal information on the band members past and current, and is assuming a manipulative position based on a trademark that is in the process of being invalidated for the above reasons. He first hasn't attempted to contact the band before resigning, then as stated in his interview, ^[2] where he clearly declares that he first resigned, then called his new band Heaven is Waiting, then changed his mind otherwise his current singer wouldn't have accepted anything other than The Danse Society, so then he registered the trademark on somebody else's existing copyright and instantly puts himself in charge of deleting the current band members that never left the boat, to install himself and his new partners of venture, calling himself as a contributor for editing in the name of truth. Also such user has already been notified by Paul Nash's solicitor.]

Comments:

As a long time fan, having seen the band dying in the 80s and following the last 4 years of hard team work to reclaim a good reputation, seeing such a lack of respect for a team for a lonely ex band member in this way, I am frankly appalled. Since Wikipedia has always been a point of reference for everyone, I believe that if Mr Tarnhall has got something to say this should not mean deleting 4 years of history for his personal revenge and changes of mind. People are interested in The Danse Society and not in his personal ventures, I believe. I hope this explains the reasons for my report. ps: I apologise for struggling with the structure of this report. Thank you. Kind regards Journalist astronomist (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)journalist astronomist

(Non-administrator comment)  Comment: - An extraneous header or other inappropriate text was removed from this request. Epicgenius (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the sourced and more neutral version of the article from before the whole clusterfuck (removing the non-

verify. Ian.thomson (talk

) 16:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Protected five days. If the war continues when protection expires a number of single-purpose accounts may need to be blocked. The edits suggest continuation of a real-world dispute here on Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 13:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Page

The Zeitgeist Movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Benjamin au (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 12:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Comments:

User has been warned multiple times that their edits are inapropriate, and they must gain consensus on the article's talk page should they want content reinstated. —

12:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

(This is Benjamin) The TZM page needs to be fully protected please. The Zeitgeist Movement exists of many ideas completly unrelated to the films and this must be respected. Please refer to many other political movements) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin au (talk • contribs) 12:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Result: I have indefinitely protected the redirect from The Zeitgeist Movement to Zeitgeist (film series). People keep re-creating a separate article on the movement, contrary to the RfC at Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement#Request for comment on reception section. Anyone who believes that the Zeitgeist movement deserves an article of its own and that the movement is not adequately covered in Zeitgeist (film series) should get new consensus to allow re-creation of a separate article. EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Page

Race and health (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Scott101100 (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

Diff

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user is also under sockpuppet investigation and I basically consider them a vandal. One of their POV they try to edit into the Race and health article is that " all white people are intellectually disabled in some form or another, due to their abnormalities in chromosome 15 affecting the pituitary gland and possibly the brain, as well as their limited vision." Iselilja (talk) 20:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Blocked as sockpuppet now. Iselilja (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Page: Darren Espanto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wikifixerrr (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. special:diff/637429670
2. special:diff/637354557
3. special:diff/637293477
4. special:diff/637288896
5. special:diff/637188217

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: special:diff/637378625#Primary topic for Darren

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: special:diff/637378625#Primary topic for Darren

Comments:

Blocked – 48 hours. The user has 190 edits but has never left a message on a talk page. They kept on editing after the notice of the 3RR complaint but made no response. If they are truly not listening at all a longer block may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Page: Diem Brown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sincere310 (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. [60]
2. [61]
3. [62]
4. [63]
5. [64]
6. [65]
7. [66]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] edit summaries, ongoing pleas amongst editors.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [== age/b-date lie ==

So I added a link to the people article and wrote about the age lie in the personal section of the article. Can people please stop changing the correct info.? I do have doubts about when exactly she began lying about her age as some commentors have pointed-out that she may have done it early in her career because she would have been ineligible for her MTV show as they allegedly had an age limit of 25, but the statement from the sister implies that her cancer was most of the reason although she did mention "show biz"-so if anyone wants to add that or more valid refs about it they may. There are other valid ref articles available, but none really confirm when she started the lie98.221.118.184 (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)]

Comments:
This minor celebrity who recently died was found to have been lying about her age. Random editors keep trying to change back to the wrong age after reliable refs have been posted to the article about the age being wrong and the lie.98.221.118.184 (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC) 98.221.118.184 (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

[Withdrawn after user's self-revert] ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 00:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: )

Previous version reverted to: [67]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [68]
2. [69]

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

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

Comments: User eventually opened the talk discussion, but only after ignoring my first invitation and reverting. They then claimed an agreement that did not exist and reverted again on that basis. That is the current state of the article.

This is my first trip to this board, and I apologize for any presentation shortcomings. I hope I don't do this enough to become good at it. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I genuinely believed we had come to an agreement, per discussion, since 1) it was agreed that "suburb" did not need linking, and 2) there was no reply to my observation that Ferguson, Missouri cannot be overlinking (ie, drawing attention away from the text), since it looks identical to Ferguson, Missouri which was in the article previously.

I did not do more than 3 reverts. The 3rd was after the talk page discussion appeared, in my understanding, and in the absence of a reply, to have reached agreement. If you had reverted, of course, that would have indicated otherwise (to my astonishment), and I would not have reverted again, obviously, since that would go over 3RR.

You say "ignoring my first invitation". I did not "ignore" your invitation: I thought it would be equally productive, and more efficient, to offer a better explanation in my edit summary. Specifically, "some of us don't know where Missouri is; everyone knows what a suburb is" (my 2nd edit summary) rather than simply "better linking" (my 1st ES, which I had initially assumed would be sufficient). The more complete explanation was my preferred method of reaching consensus, in the first instance, rather than opening a talk page discussion about this minor edit. When the full explanation was not sufficient, I did open the discussion.

In what sense had we not come to an agreement? You admitted that you had not checked my edit before reverting. Now that you have, I would really like you to explain how

zzz (talk

) 23:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I clearly stated my objection to Missouri on the talk page. I'm not going to do it again here. Be advised, you can't claim failure to respond as an agreement. If you could, things would get very complicated if one of the parties had to leave for some reason. I agree when I say I agree. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 23:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

(As I said, I have not gone over 3RR.) The only part of the edit I can imagine anyone disagreeing with was my unlinking of "suburb"; but you agreed to this, after admitting you had not previously checked my edit (despite reverting it twice). After this had been established, I stated "It seems we are in agreement" (and there was no reply when I returned to the page, after editing on other pages). I would not have assumed anything from this normally, but in this case it is logically impossible to object to

zzz (talk

) 23:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not the place to resolve content disputes. That is what article talk pages are for. If you will self-revert and agree to leave the article in that state until there is consensus for the change, I will be happy to withdraw this complaint and continue the content discussion where it belongs. The discussion is still quite new, but it's not currently going your way. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 23:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

You said "I clearly stated my objection to Missouri on the talk page". Well, you did mention "overlinking"; I explained, in terms of policy, how this cannot be the case. Since we are in fact now discussing this at enormous length, please state your objection.

zzz (talk

) 00:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

For the third and final time, this is not the place to resolve content disputes and I will not abuse this space because you insist that I do. I am requesting some kind of intervention here. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 00:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawn after user's self-revert. Judging by the editsum they have given up on the content question. Sorry for the waste of page space. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 00:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Page

Austin Police Department (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 19:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC) to 19:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
   1. 19:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 636209263 by ArizonaComebacks (talk)"
   2. 19:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 636209203 by ArizonaComebacks (talk)"
   3. 19:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 636208948 by ArizonaComebacks (talk)"
   4. 19:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 636208849 by ArizonaComebacks (talk)"
   5. 19:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 636208770 by ArizonaComebacks (talk)no police misconduct. just one angry person who didn't like the way he was treated"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Both Cynlouise and

) 13:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours (User:Cynlouise and User:ArizonaComebacks).--Bbb23 (talk) 12:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: Nutrition.and.Health (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 03:03 Dec 9

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:14 Dec 9
2. 4:17 Dec 10
3. 17:07 Dec 10
4. 18:35 Dec 10
5. 18:37 Dec 10
6. 20:17 Dec 10

and now, 21:33 Dec 10, removing tags.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 09:56 Dec 10 18:40 Dec 10 and 20:35 Dec 10

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71]

Comments:

Editor has not engaged either user talk or article talk, even with four different editors attempting communication with him or her. Continues to edit with no responses on any talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Update And again, 22.44 dec 10 and still no response on user or article talk, even after more prompting.[72] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Four hours later, no action, an admin at the Education Noticeboard protected the article: [73] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected (full) by Xaosflux for one week. Apparently, the reported user is a student on assignment.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Page

T-90 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

M60a3tts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637607339 by Al Khazar (talk)"
2. 10:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637607528 by Al Khazar (talk) So what. Accept the fact."
3. 10:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637607804 by 331dot (talk) bunch of noobs."
4. 10:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "i surrender, noobs."
5. 10:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637608154 by Al Khazar (talk) I did used the reliable source THAT YOU WERE TALKING. WHY CHANGE?"
6. 10:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637608293 by 331dot (talk) NOW YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS VANDALING. DON'T YOU HAVE ANY EYES?"
7. 10:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637608436 by 331dot (talk) SERIOUSLY. Now You Two are the one who is vandaling. You guys told me to bring the reliable one, so I DID."
8. 10:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637608702 by Al Khazar (talk) You know what? BTVT.NAROD.RU is a personal site, full of russian exaggerated figures. It is not credible at all."
9. 10:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637608916 by Al Khazar (talk) kept the ref except NAROD."
10. 10:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637609171 by Al Khazar (talk) Stop vandalling. For example, narod claimed that the protection of M1A1 was under 400mm, and in reality it's 600mm(Zaloga). IT IS NOT CREDIBLE AT ALL."
11. 11:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637609486 by 331dot (talk) I gave Khazar a reference, and HE DELEATED THE TALK PAGE."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Final warning notice on
   TW
   )"
2. 10:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 10:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Same as the IP user reported above. Brief attempt to discuss the issue on another user's talk page (User talk:Al Khazar). When they became dissatisfied with the direction of that discussion they resumed reverting. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked for 7 days. Will semi-protect the article as well due to IP socking. Black Kite (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Page

T-90 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637606046 by Al Khazar (talk) I DID SEE THE TALK PAGE, AND THE REF I BROUGHT ARE ON IT. USE YOUR EYES. You know nothing about the armored vehicle, don't you? LOL"
2. 10:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637606654 by Al Khazar (talk) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6M_3vz3CDw#t=138 WATCH THIS. USE YOUR EARS."
3. 10:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637606920 by Al Khazar (talk) It was Taken in Expo Arms 2011, and this video was taken by the officials. Stop whining and accept the FACT."
4. 10:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637607146 by Al Khazar (talk) AND WHAT YOU ARE DOING NOW IS NEGLECTING THE FACT."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"
2. 10:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Final warning notice on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

May also have registered a sock at User:M60a3tts. Attempts were made to discuss the issue in edit summaries 331dot (talk) 10:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked for 7 days as per below report. Black Kite (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC) "Facts and knowledge contribution should not be changed or modified by unknown editors"
2. 13:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Facts and knowledge contribution should not be changed or modified by unknown editors PLEASE. Undid revision 637601863 by Qwerty3594 (talk)"
3. 13:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "AVOID VANDALISM PLEASE"
4. 14:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Dear Friend, Goa was invaded and annexed in 1961 defined by the UN. It rejoined the REPUBLIC OF INDIA in 1974/75 after a sovreignity treaty with the UN by PORTUGAL & India. So, please do NOT VANDALISE."
5. 14:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC) ""
6. 14:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Dear Friend, Please reference your claim from UN Charter DOCUMENTS."
7. 14:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Reference: http://www.colaco.net/1/treaty.htm ; Let FACTS be on WIKIPEDIA for Knowledge contribution only not VANDALISM or manipulations. Any further issues, write on my talk page and refrain from changing."
8. 14:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Signed : March 14, 1975 ; courtesy: United Nations Treaty series 1975: Vol: 982, pg: 159"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Goa."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Note that

) 14:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Note Also,
  ^{Imperatrix Mundi}
  14:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
• Update The edit warring has continued even after the filing and notification of this report. See Goa article history for the more recent activity. Abecedare (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

On a lighter note, he has just awarded himself the

^{Imperatrix Mundi}

15:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked User:Portugal Editor Exploration for one week based on current, previous block (there's only one), and removal of report, and User:Qwerty3594 for 48 hours (first block).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: Turan22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [74]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [75]
2. [76]
3. [77]

That is only three reverts, but they were made after I specifically warned the editor for edit warring on Avicenna, with another three undos in 24 hours here:

[78] [79] [80]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on Avicenna article talk page: [82]

Comments:

• not here to help the encyclopedia. This is an account which was newly created on 9 December to participate in the same ethnic edit warring, and has no edits which are not Undos. The chance that Bilga07 could be a sock of Turan22 did cross my mind. Neither account has ever left a talk comment or an edit summary. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 19:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [83]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

(Times are in my local time, not UTC)

1. [84] 15:00, 9 December 2014
2. [85] 15:50, 9 December 2014
3. [86] 07:51, 10 December 2014
4. [87] 11:17, 10 December 2014

(Times are in my local time, not UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [88]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [89]

Comments:

User attempting to alter standard infobox practices (and also the standard link to

) 22:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I sounds like User:MaronitePride has conceded the point at Talk:Hamdi Ulukaya#Infobox, but his version is still the latest one on the article itself. If the editor is in fact willing to accept the consensus about infobox parameters, maybe he can go ahead and undo his last revert at Hamdi Ulukaya. If he does so that might allow this report to be closed with no further action. EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Result: No action, since the editor self-reverted as requested. Their edit summary indicates they may still not understood that making nationality changes is risky. Such matters present a stronger than usual need to check for consensus. And we know what trouble infoboxes can bring. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@EdJohnston Unfortunately, nationality issues are about the only thing this user edits, and his/her screenname tends to reflect his/her obsession with nationality. I do appreciate the way this was handled, however I agree that the edit summary is concerning and may reflect a wider problem. Softlavender (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [90]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [91]
2. [92]
3. [93]

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

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

[94] [95] [96]

Comments:

•  Comment: I am a photographer and my contributions to Wikipedia consist mainly in finding good pictures for the articles; that is precisely what I tried to do here, without success. I see no quick solution for this case, as the editor acts like he owns the article and has apparently loosed his temper. Not only his arguments about the quality of the images are particularly desingenious but his attitude was arrogant and rude, e.g. in eliminating my comments from his talk page. Can you please help? Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy close:This individual is apparently interested in putting up his own work and is upset that the quality of his photo is questioned.. Per WP:BURDEN, WP:3RR and other policies, this individual had the affirmative obligation to support his views and the affirmative obligation to leave the status quo in place until the situation was resolved. I told this individual to discuss at talk, instead he reverted and edit-warred over his own image. I took the issue to the talk page of that article and instead he reports the situation here instead of discussing. This is a GA-class article, so changes have a higher level of scrutiny. As I explained there, first he inserts two images of the same horse, then he reinserts the first, for the lead image, but that animal is poorly-posed, fat, standing "butt-high" (which could either be a bad stance or a serious conformation flaw) and, had he chosen to discuss instead of going here, I would have also explained that images, when possible, need to be looking "into" the article. The reality of nice lighting and photographic resolution does not take away from the problem that the quality of the animal is not an improvement over what was there. (Frankly, looking at the Commons cat, there are no "good" images for the lead, to find a left-facing, properly posed, full-body, representative image is not easy. Montanabw^(talk) 19:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

  Comment: I am putting up the two images in question. The current image (dark gray) is not great, but it's a side shot, shows basic breed conformation (strong, arched neck, powerful hindquarters, convex profile), facing "into" the article, and the horse has been groomed. The image of Alvesgaspar's (the light gray) is an ill-groomed animal (dirty feet, unkempt mane and tail) shot from behind, which causes some distortion, the horse looks like it has weak hindquarters, the characteristic arched neck is not evident, the horse is too fat (I initially thought it was pregnant, but there appear to be genitals visible, so I guess it's not a mare, after all), it has more leg conformation flaws than the dark gray, and so on. The point, though, is that this is a talk page discussion per WP:BRD, and not one for this drama board, except per this, the other user seems to have no interest in discussing. So here we are. Montanabw^(talk) 20:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Dirty feet, unkempt mane and tail ? Can you please look better, this time opening the image in full resolution? The animal had just been combed (in the mane and tail) and his feet cleaned! Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Manure stains all over his body, mane is ragged and uneven, there are dreadlocks in his tail, and clearly with moisture about halfway up the hooves (and his toes are a bit too long, the angles are off). Maybe someone knocked off the chunks, but this horse is very dirty. Montanabw^(talk) 23:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Pishcal (talk
  ) 20:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Eliminating comments from your talk page (with a "go away") after someone has just written a message is rude and hardly accepted among educated editors (I would rather say among educated people). My counter argument for Montanabw comment about the one fat poorly-posed image (what the hell does this mean?) was the superior image quality of the new leading image, as I have more than once argued. Now I understand that he is probably referring to a fat horse, not a fat image, but this happens after he has reverted my edit three times. Nowhere in his comments I see the will to engage in a civilized discussion. On the contrary, he apparently was acting as if he were the owner of the artcile. By the way, why can't a article about the Lusitano horse depict a overweighted animal or a horse head? Just because an editor says so? Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Please remember to remain
  Pishcal (talk
  ) 20:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Can you please point to where I engaged in personall attacks? The correct thing for Montanabw to do, if he really wanted to discuss the subject, would be to go straight to the talk page before he first reverted my edit. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• IN this case
  Pishcal
  :, you have not looked at the proper sequence:

1. On December 8, Alvesgaspar inserts this horrifying image of a thin, muddy, neglected animal with the edit summary, "better picture." It's not.
2. Two edits later, Alvesgaspar inserts two of his own photos, arguably slightly better ones, into a GA-class article that is already a touch image-heavy, both apparently of the same animal, the head shot in such a fashion as to sandwich text (and in the wrong place for a head shot, plus the photo is not very appealing for a number of reasons). The body shot replaces the thin horse with a fat one.
3. On December 9, I do a "good faith" AGF revert, (1x) with edit summary "Don't need two photos of the same horse, and lead photo not much of an improvement over the other."
4. Alvesgaspar restores his photo on December 10, early in the day (about 2am my time) with discussion to make his case continuing via edit summary.
5. Alvesgaspar goes to my talk AFTER he edit-wars to restore his image!
6. I told Alvesgaspar to take it to article talk. (11:42 my time)
7. Then I restore the status quo image about 10 minutes later. (2x) (11:55 my time) I open the talk page window to discuss, and get distracted by some RL work, not returning until my lunch break.
8. Alvesgaspar reverts four minutes later at 11:59 my time with a snotty "you take it to talk page" comment.
9. 12:12 my time I see the revert realize I hadn't saved my ARTICLE talk comment and do so. (
10. simultaneously to that edit at article talk, Alvesgaspar tells me it's MY job to go to talk, failing to understand that per WP:BRD, he carries the burden, particularly for a GA-class article. He threatens me with 3RR (when it's the 4th edit that triggers the block)
11. I revert him again a minute later, (3x) telling HIM to stop edit-warring.
12. I am also frustrated that this individual refuses to go to article talk, and ask him to leave my talk page.
13. he reports me to ANI at 12:46 my time, not even seeing the post at article talk and refusing to discuss.
14. then posts at article talk at 12:51, saying a rude "too late" to me.
15. and posts to my talk about the same time.

Therefore, my position is as follows:

1. This is a GA-class article.
2. Per BRD, he was bold, I reverted AGF
3. He edit-wars to restore image and then asks me to explain
4. I restored status quo, again AGF explaining via edit summary the problems with the image, and request he take the issue to article talk.
5. He continues to edit-war to restore his image, and we have a discussion via edit summaries
6. I get the issue to the article talk (even though it is not my job to initiate discussion per BRD)
7. At the same time, he starts threatening me on my talk and then reports me to ANI
8. It is common that unless there is a BLP or copyvio concern, the status quo is maintained until the person seeking to change the article meets their burden to justify it.
9. Therefore, particularly as this IS a GA, it was Alvesgaspar's duty to not edit-war and to accept the status quo until the issue was resolved. Montanabw^(talk) 23:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Warned. Both editors (Alvesgaspar and Montanabw) reverted three times over the image. Both editors are warned that nothing they've said here would justify edit warring and that they may be blocked without notice if they persist in disrupting the article. BTW, this is not the place for extended discussion of the content dispute, and, @Alvesgaspar, Montanabw is entitled to remove your comments from his talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry Bbb23, that is not true: I reverted two times, not three. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Nope, when you changed the image on December 9, that was a revert. You didn't add a new image to the article. You replaced one image with another. That is a revert per the policy definition.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• @ Bbb23 -- Noppe, I inserted two pictures in the text, one of them replacing the leading picture. That is my usual activity in Wikipedia :). By the way, can you please revert the article to the point before the reverts began? A discussion has been started in the talk page. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• You miss the point. You inserted an image into the body of the article. That was not a revert. You replaced the picture in the infobox. That was a revert. And to answer your question, no, I'm not restoring the article back to your version.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• @ Bbb23 -- Sorry but you make no sense to me. To revert means to return, to restore or to put back to an earlier state. That is certainly not what I did. Following your interpretation, any change in an article (a paragraph, a phrase, a word, a picture) is a revert, which is irrational. This is an important point in the present discussion and should be fully clarified in the name of fairness (maybe asking the opinion of another admin?) Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• What the word "revert" means in the English sense is immaterial. Per
  WP:3RR, a revert is defined as "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Your edit removed an image from the article, which obviously undid some other editor's action (the one who put it there). If you're going to edit tendentiously as here, you should familiarize yourself more with the applicable policies. All that said, most changes to articles are not reported. They are just part of content building. However, when an initial revert becomes a battle, you'd better count that first change.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 14:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• @
  WP:3RR is changed as to reflect the usual practise. It would be also a sensitive and elegant gesture to ask the opinion of other admins on this. Alvesgaspar (talk
  ) 18:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Bbb23 is right. You're wrong. In my opinion, what you believe is the usual practise, is not. Nevertheless, this noticeboard is not the appropriate place to clarify your questions about policy. You could suggest changes to the 3RR page in the talk page associated with the policy page. If you need any assistance in that, do leave a note on my talk page. Best. Wifione ^Message 20:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The issue has gone back to talk, we shall discuss further. Frankly, if Alvesgaspar can get new and better images of the horse in question, it is possible that a better image could yet be provided to replace the current lead image, which is, admittedly, not perfect, either. Montanabw^(talk) 22:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Page

Mongol Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Uniquark9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637612585 by
   talk
   )"
2. 19:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637507136 by Laszlo Panaflex (talk)"
3. 18:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 634525868 by Sczc (talk)"
4. 18:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637479016 by Sczc (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"
2. 11:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Notifying about suspicion of sockpuppeteering. (
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[101]

Comments:

Edit warning on

) 17:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked both the sock and its owner. --slakr^\ talk / 01:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Page

Jacob Bragg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 15:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC) to 15:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
   1. 15:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 14:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC) "Read my message on the talk page."
4. 09:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC) "Please talk to me on talk page before you edit this. I think we should discuss this topic before we decide to anymore edits."
5. 07:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC) "You continue to revert my edits even though i have referenced everything possible. The rest is of personal nature and you are currently displaying you aren't intelligent to understand this by reverting my edits multiply times even. Please read this."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Comments:

Communication established, but warning not heeded. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• BTW, Egghead06 (talk · contribs) is almost as guilty here -- there's no plausible BLP exception there. That editor hasn't exceeded 3RR, but there's no reason to get to 3R. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:3RRNO may not apply. EdJohnston (talk

) 13:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Just dropping a quick note to say that I dropped the editor a warning on his talk page. There wasn't anything there that wasn't said at the talk page, but I did warn him about a potential block. Mostly I'm just writing this here for the record, so that if he does this again and we look back at this report, it'll show that he was warned on both his talk page and the article talk page and given warnings about a potential block, but kept edit warring.
  (｡◕‿◕｡)
  01:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Page: Cromwellian conquest of Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hughey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version before change20:24, 17 November 2014‎

First change by user: Revision as of 15:26, 26 November 2014

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:31, 26 November 2014‎
2. 18:25, 5 December 2014‎
3. 10:54, 6 December 2014‎
4. 13:13, 9 December 2014‎
5. 19:19, 9 December 2014‎

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

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive262#User:Hughey reported by User:PBS (Result: Blocked) Same page different dispute,(the last revert of the last dispute is listed above as Revision 20:24, 17 November 2014 -- the last edit before Hughey's first change in this dispute ).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Not a diff but a section:

• Talk:Cromwellian conquest of Ireland#Technically not as sold as slaves but as indentured labourers

Comments:

The edit history shows that from 11 September 2014‎ there have been 27 edits to the page 25 of those have involved user:Hughey of which only two have not been reverts of reverts made by four other editors' reverting Hughey's edits.

user:Hughey behaviour does not seem to have altered one jot in response to the a previous block because of edit warring on this page. Since the block ended Hughey has made five reverts of three other editor revering Hughey's reverts. Discussion by Hughey on the talk page has been restricted to one comment "The definition of indenture is as contract, these people agreed to nothing. There must be an agreement on both sides to claim indenture, therefore no indenture is implied in this case" -- which contains no explanation based on policy or reliable sources for the reverts. -- PBS (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

User:PBS is taking the edits on said page far too personally. I believe that user and at least one other (User:Pinkbeast)are claiming ownership in violation of WP:Owner (multiple editors) policy. If said users are to continue to block me from good faith edits I request that something be done. When any other Editor is involved I have not had issues.Hughey (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

diffs of other users reverts:

1. 00:13, 10 December 2014 User:PBS
2. 19:14, 9 December 2014 User:Pinkbeast
3. 07:07, 9 December 2014 User:Pinkbeast
4. 12:36, 27 November 2014 User:PBS
5. 16:29, 26 November 2014 User:PBS

• Hughey, your next logical block would be for one week. The last block was in mid-November for 31 hours by User:Bbb23 for long-term warring on this article, and this report shows you continuing the same pattern. You may be able to avoid a block if you will promise to wait for a clear consensus on the talk page before making any further change to the article. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

(sorry, I didn't notice Ed had answered two minutes earlier. Not trying to over-rule or anything) --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC) @Hughey:: I wouldn't be surprised if another admin saw this and just blocked you for 72 hours or something, but I'm curious and would rather ask a question instead: if two or three people feel one way about something, and one person feels another way, are we supposed to go with the lone person's opinion, because WP:OWN? You say your edit should stick because it was made in good faith; are you saying PBS and Pinkbeast (and at least one other editor whose name I've already forgotten) aren't? You're warning other people that they'll be blocked for edit warring if they revert your edit again; does our edit warring policy apply to them but not you? That seems to be what you're saying. Look, there's a disagreement. Therefore, instead of turning it into a test of will, or patience, you need to discuss it and come to some kind of consensus before changing it again. I'm not going to block you right now, but you should know that if you revert to your prefered version again, before getting consensus to do so, I'll block you for two months. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

RE- User:Floquenbeam and User:EdJohnston suggestions - agreed. I will make no more changes to this article without consensus. Hughey (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Last four edit made by Hughey

• 19:07, 10 December 2014 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring ‎
• 19:25, 10 December 2014 User talk:Hughey ‎ (current) [rollback: 1 edit]
• 19:33, 10 December 2014 Wotton House ‎ (Reverted 2 edits by PBS (talk) to last revision by Cydebot. (TW))
• 19:34, 10 December 2014 Wotton House ‎ (Undid revision 637511892 by Hughey (talk)) (current) [rollback: 2 edits]

Wotton House (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It seems more than a coincidence that Hughey waits 20 minutes after commenting here, removes the notice of this section placed on user talk:Hughey by me, and less than 10 minutes later reverted an edit using Twinkle I had made to Wotton House. This was the last page I had edited and a page Hughey has never edited before. The revert edit made by Hughey was self reverted within a minute. However the chances are more than 4 million to one that this was not a case of stalking. I think is shows a worrying threatening battle ground mentality. I think that this behaviour ought to be taken into account here as I was the one who brought this charge of edit-warring and the hounding seems to be directly related to it. Luckily I am an old hand (and so I have seen worse), but for a less experienced editor this could be very threatening behaviour. -- PBS (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

PBS I am not stalking you. Yes, you are an old hand at this. I am considering your other edits in response to your now, incessant attacks on me. I did not have enough time to put an argument together before you reported me and forced me into this argument on this page. I think that it is you who is Wikihounding. There are at least two other editors who were coming to agree with my edits (User 64.134.224.227 & User:Jdorney).

None of us have completely covered ourselves in glory, but Hughey's account of the situation is not totally accurate; they have also reverted Dhtwiki a few times, and turned up on my talk page to claim to be about to report me for edit warring, which seems to have a certain pot/kettle element. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Now we are getting somewhere. I turned up as you say, because it is the warning part for a report (required). I think looking back over the warring, that Pinkbeast and I could have worked this out, if PBS would have just reported and then backed off. I fat fingered the PBS page, while looking at their history, my bad Hughey (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Result: Warned. In spite of his above assurances, it is still unclear whether User:Hughey perceives the problems with his edits. But if he continues to revert (prior to consensus) or continues to pursue other editors via their contribution history (as in reverting PBS's change at Wotton House), a block is sure to follow. EdJohnston (talk) 02:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Page

The Hobbit (film series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

[102]

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [103]
2. [104]
3. [105]
4. [106]
5. [107]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC) "Edit-warring advisory, please discuss at the appropriate Talk page instead of reverting"

Comments:

Multiple reverts in violation of 3RR despite warnings from multiple editors. DonIago (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Page

Mufaddal Saifuddin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ramiericson (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 06:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC) to 06:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
   1. 06:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC) "Summichum don't add survey reports here. There is a main page for that."
   2. 06:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC) "reverting false and
      WP:POINT edits by User:summichum
      "
2. 09:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC) "Summichum write all these content on your website. Don't distrupt wikipedia. Writing false content on wikipedia, will not make Khuzaima a Dai."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

the user also has COI, AND has been informed not to remove information Summichum (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Warned for long-term edit warring.
  WP:ARBIPA he may be banned from the topic of the Dawoodi Bohra by any administrator if he shows himself unable to edit neutrally. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 18:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment EdJohnston I don't consider this closed. The complainant here has been tag-bombing multiple related articles with absurd tags such as autobiography for 11th century people. I think there is a real possibility of WP:POINT on both sides. DGG ( talk ) 21:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Request Withdrawn. I don't see a reason to continue with this with the editor being so new. better to Assume good faith anyway. LorChat 22:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Page talk | history | links | watch | logs ) User being reported Anasaitis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to Diffs of the user's reverts 22:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637823130 by talk ) I just checked the talk page, and your edits appear to be contrary to what the majority agree. Stop reverting my edit." 21:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637751297 by talk ) It is an unrecognized state. They have their own government, military, controlled territory, and are highly organized. They have been January 2014." Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning 22:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. ( TW )" 22:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC) "r" Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page Comments: User has broken the 1RR Currently active on the page. LorChat 22:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC) My sincerest apologies for breaking the 1RR on the article. I don't know what that is. I only joined Wikipedia recently, and I'm still getting the hang of how things role around here. I will try to work on this in the future. Anasaitis (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: Salvidrim! (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. [108]
2. [109]
3. [110]
4. [111]
5. [112]
6. [113]

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

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

Comments:
TV shows that have been made and produced by the country that made them should have the release dates, not from the country that first released regardless of Wikipedia rules and what Salvidrim! says.

• I'll reply at length when I get home, but yes, I reverted multiple times in the face of a refusal to discuss on the talk page despite my attempts, as would be required by
  WP:BRD. I am more than happy to engage in dispute resolution if the reverter wishes to present a policy-anchored case for reversion. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉
  23:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• I think TV shows made in either US, UK, Canada, France and such should have their release dates, not by the country where a certain episode first aired. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'm glad that we're discussing it (on the article talk page) and am happy to stop reverting until we're done talking it out. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• Declined.
  dispute resolution mechanisms available. Continued disruption to the article may be met with blocks.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 01:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• I admit I may have acted less than ideally and apologize for it, if that helps. I agree that edit warring is not a constructive part of dispute resolution. Technically, I made the edit on Dec. 10th, reverted the removal a first time on Dec. 11th, then a second time on Dec. 12nd, so I guess that'd only be two reverts? But still, it's not about the count, it's about the behaviour, and reverting a revert is plainly never a good idea. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• You're sort of right, and I'm wrong (not sorta). Your first revert, if one counts it, was on December 11. Your next revert was also on December 11. Your third revert was on December 12, and outside the 24-hour window of the first, so you were at two reverts for the purpose of
  WP:3RR. Perhaps you think it's December 10 because you're not using UTC?--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 02:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• Ah, yea, got local time enabled (UTC-5). And I'm embarrassed to admit I've never quite had the occasion to figure our whether an edit that adds content for the first time is considered "a revert" for the purposes of 3RR anyways. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• You're not alone on the first revert business. Technically, any change to the article constitutes a revert. The only thing that doesn't is when you add brand new material to an article. However, an admin has discretion as to whether to count an edit as revert, even if it's not the first. For example, if you correct a spelling, no one would count that as a revert despite the fact that it's a change. In your first edit, you changed the release dates and added sources. The source additions, by themselves, would not count as a revert. However, the release date change could if an admin chose to count it. Some editors want all of this spelled out in the policy, but that would be very difficult as the whole idea of discretion is to give admins leeway, and not every admin will agree (nothing new); nor will the parameters of the discretion be easy to explain. I hope that helps more than it muddies the waters, but it's a complicated issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

You and I both know some Wikipedia policies are never good or right at times. I do think that TV shows that are made and produced from certain countries should have episode airdates, rather than when it first aired from a different that doesn't really produce it. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you know what I know. I may have a personal view as to a policy, but my role is to enforce policy whether I agree with it or not. Guidelines are a little different. Although there may be a presumption that a guideline should be followed, it may be overriden on a case-by-case basis if there's a clear consensus to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I think there should be a consensus to have TV shows that are made and produced by a certain country to have their release dates, not from the earliest one from a different country because shows from the US, UK or Canada should have their own release dates. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

This isn't the place to have that discussion. --Onorem (talk) 02:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Where should I discuss it then? BattleshipMan (talk) 02:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Page

McDonnell Douglas MD-12 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC) "Jesus, May and Joseph, I did exactly what I was told to do, add the text with proper references! Geez, it was jackass who took the info out, based solely upon his opinion. You wikipedia people can be real assholes!"
2. 22:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637832100 by Darkmaster2004 (talk)"
3. 22:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC) "read the category, it is the same era and use, good enuf for government work and wikipedia"
4. 21:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC) "useful era comparison"
5. 20:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637179941 by 74.74.134.29 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on
   TW
   )"
2. 22:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit Warring against User:Fnlayson who hasn't performed more than 2 reverts themselves before I myself arrived to warn the IP about edit warring. I have performed 2 reverts in this as of now and will perform no further. The user has reverted my 2nd reversion as well. Melody Concerto^talk 23:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours --slakr^\ talk / 02:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Page: The Amazing Race 25 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ryulong (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. [114]
2. [115]
3. [116]
4. [117]
5. [118]

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

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

Comments:
Ryulong has consistently reverted edits that include "Sweden" in the leg four header of this article. His contention is that the show says 8 countries (which rules out Sweden being visited), however the consensus on the talk page has been to include it in the country county + put it in the header. This is a case of edit warring, not 3RR. He has not reverted against a majority/consensus on the talk page. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

As per my edit summary (the 5th diff), tonight's broadcast explicitly stated something that we were waiting to be said to prove a point of contention on the talk page. Additionally, there is no 3RR violation as the first 4 diffs are from November 17/18, nearly 4 weeks ago, rather than evidence of ongoing disruptive editing of the article. This is a content dispute that Sportsfan 1234 has been pursuing for several months now since the ambiguity of this fact came up 2 months ago after a television broadcast.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• Declined Sportsfan, this board generally does not entertain proxy reports of edit warring, unless there is an evident issue of edit warring. In this case, there seems to be no such issue. Please
  do not file such reports unless there is visible disruption against consensus. Wifione ^Message
  04:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] [121]
(The disputed material which was reverted was basically the entire contents of the "Electrical conduction" section.)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:05, December 12, 2014
2. 06:19, December 12, 2014
3. 15:59, December 11, 2014
4. 06:12, December 11, 2014
5. 22:52, December 9, 2014
6. 20:09, November 17, 2014
7. 20:21, October 30, 2014
8. 16:27, October 30, 2014
9. 07:49, October 20, 2014
10. 06:15, October 20, 2014
11. 06:41, October 11, 2014
12. 20:13, October 9, 2014
13. 13:31, October 9, 2014
14. 06:58, September 23, 2014
15. 14:35, September 22, 2014
16. 09:46, September 22, 2014
17. 08:23, September 20, 2014
18. 15:02, September 8, 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] [122]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

3 editors reached out to him on his Talk page to try to discuss it with him but he refused, in several cases replying with a strange quote from Neil Armstrong: [126], [127], [128],

Comments:

Between September 10 and December 8

19:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment In none of your diffs has he actually breached
  ^{Imperatrix Mundi}
  19:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I noticed GLPeterson ran the clock down between RV#1 and RV#4 reverting a forth time exactly 24hrs and 7min after the first. The editor also reverted 3 times, without any participation on the talk page, after the ANI complaint (where he was asked again to please to please refrain from continued disruptive editing). We are at "File another ANI report" on the
    WP:GAMING. If we need to be technical then this should be moved to ANI. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk
    ) 21:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • BTW the DIFFS in this report seem to be a little off, here is the borderline 3RR violation diffdiffdiffdiff. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

There are two sets of borderline 3RR violations. The second one in the list, (diff, 18:59 Dec 11) is followed by four reverts, the last at diff, 19:05 Dec 12, or 24 hours 6 minutes after.

The content is sourced mostly to primary sources written by Tesla and to 19th century publications, neither of which can be used without

WP:SYNTH. It is written with non-standard terminology. There does not appear to be a good-faith desire to improve this content, for example by standardizing the terms used. Calling it a content dispute may not be quite accurate, because the content is indisputably inappropriate for a science and technology article. Roches (talk

) 01:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: Withdrawn due to lack of severity and

.

Page

Jason Mooney (footballer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637936246 by Mattythewhite (talk)"
2. 18:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637938738 by Mattythewhite (talk)"
3. 18:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637939066 by Discospinster (talk)"
4. 18:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637939516 by Discospinster (talk)"
5. 20:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637939616 by Discospinster (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on
   TW
   )"
2. 20:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC) "/* If an edit is contested by other editors, please discuss the situation at the article's talk page */"
3. 20:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC) "/* If an edit is contested by other editors, please discuss the situation at the article's talk page */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Thank you to (talk) for your honest message with heavy explanation into some of my confusion over this topic. I appreciate the detailed response regardless of any outcome as it can at least clear up my understanding greatly. Best, 50.133.231.46 (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

Edit warring,

21:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• Note At the time of the report, the IP has not reverted again after being warned about 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
• Note Actually, hold the report until he reverts again, as per above. HelloThereMinions
  talk, contribs
  21:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment It isn't that severe of a violation and there isn't a "war" anymore, so it should be declined. I have also told the user to do the
  talk, contribs
  21:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you to (talk) for your honest message with heavy explanation into some of my confusion over this topic. I appreciate the detailed response regardless of any outcome as it can at least clear up my understanding greatly. Best, 50.133.231.46 (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• Result: WIthdrawn by submitter. The discussion above suggests that the parties are working it out. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Page: Moscrop Secondary School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CMLSislove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [129]
2. [130]
3. [131]
4. [132]
5. [133]
6. [134]
7. [135]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [136]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [137]

Comments:
Multiple editors have tried to work with CMLSislove. There are messages on his talk page, on the article talk page and on Meters talk page all telling him the policies of Wikipedia. VViking_TalkEdits 02:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – Indef by User:5 albert square for having an inappropriate user name. EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Page

2014 MLS Cup Playoffs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637974600 by Walter Görlitz (talk) Don't bother"
2. 02:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637987274 by Walter Görlitz (talk) I really don't care."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC) "Final warning notice on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The IP6 anon is the same editor and there's indication that the IP switched and was warned in the past. Either lock the article or block the IP. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two months. Last protection was for two weeks in November. EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Page: Martin Dudley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:Anglicanus

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Dudley&oldid=638025154
2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Dudley&diff=638026905&oldid=638025154
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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:Anglicanus
[diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mabelina

Comments:

I should much like to co-operate with Anglicanus but his constant reversions (under the MOS banner) are making productive editing, ie the addition of extra relevant info, very difficult. Not being au fait with all correct terminology & styles is quite understandable - I should know not being infallible myself! Please advise how to resolve - many thanks Mabelina Mabelina (talk) 10:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete
  diffs. This report has one diff and has no link to an edit warring warning or exact links to discussion on the article talk page. only (talk
  ) 12:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Page

DJ Erick Roman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

DJ Erick Roman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 05:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 05:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC) "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of
   TW
   )"
2. 08:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC) "Notifying author of deletion nomination for DJ Erick Roman"
3. 08:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Removing speedy deletion tags on
   TW
   )"
4. 05:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Removing speedy deletion tags. (
   TW
   )"
5. 05:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

DJ Erick Roman (talk · contribs) has edit warred over speedy deletion tags on an article that appears to be an autobiography with no notability. The page in question has been deleted 3 times in the last 3 days. He has been addressed on his talk page several times. [144] [145] [146] [147]

I attempted to warn the user about 3RR but he committed the 3rd revert slightly before the warning.

The user's page has also been deleted 3 times for misuse of user page hosting the same information.

The removal of tags by the page creator also occurred on the previous deleted versions of both the user page and article page.

The user moved the page to Wikipedia:DJ Erick Roman Oficial Weedwacker (talk) 07:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Already blocked by Rschen7754. Wifione ^Message 10:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:

User was banned for 24 hours on 10 December. Has edited again with the same edits for which he was banned

• Already blocked indefinitely by FreeRangeFrog. Wifione ^Message 10:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: first undoing of unproven statements

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [148]
2. [149]
3. fake source added (no information about subject there)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [150]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [151] [152]

Comments:User never responded directly on why does he do this or what academic sources does he have. He just waits some time and then reverts all edits that are aimed to balance his unproven claims.

Masusimaru (talk) 09:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment
  ^{Imperatrix Mundi}
  14:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Note. There's a competing discussion here at
  WP:ANI brought by Steverci. Masusimaru did not notify Steverci of this report as reuqired; I've done so.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 02:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually I did, but Steverci has removed my warning, see [153]. After that, he started the discussion on the admins page trying to block me. But what can he/she say in particular about his edits of Suvorov's page? I want fair answers and fair sources of information being added to Wiki. Thanks. Masusimaru (talk) 13:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Pages:

)
User being reported: Mitrale89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: First revision on Serbs, [154]; on Serbian Argentine,[155]; on Serbs of Croatia [156]; and on Serbs in the Republic of Macedonia [157]

Diffs of the user's violation of 3RR:

1. [158]
2. [159]
3. [160]
4. [161]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: No formal warning of the 3RR.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: on Serbs, [162]; on Serbs of Croatia, [163]; and on Serbs in the Republic of Macedonia, [164]

Comments:
Since creating an account several days ago, this user's editing has consisted mainly of inflating the number of Serbs in various places (i.e. Serbs in Slovenia), either with no sources or with an unreliable estimate from a biased Serbian article, or of adding unsourced individuals to lists of people (i.e. Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina). The user has been asked to join discussions both on his own talkpage and on article talkpages but has not done so. --Local hero ^talk 15:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: [165] 18:33 UTC 14 Dec 2014

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [166] 19:33 UTC 14 Dec 2014
2. [167] 19:34 UTC 14 Dec 2014
3. [168] 00:40 UTC 15 Dec 2014
4. [169] 00:42 UTC 15 Dec 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [170] (which the user has already replied to)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [171] (the section '"Subject to confirmation"/"Provisional"')

Comments:

Prisonermonkeys, who has previously been blocked for edit warring three times since October (

have stated that it is clearly not a case of WEASEL, which Prisonermonkeys does not understand. To this effect, Prisonermonkeys, made four reversions (above) in just over five hours (no-one else violated 3RR). Following the second pair of reversions, Prisonermonkeys then decided to go onto the talk page to re-assert his stance, which was quickly rejected. Just over three hours after breeching 4RR, Prisonermonkeys then proceeded to add the notes back onto the page (using four edits, a perfectly legitimate set of edits). Prisonermonkeys claims (fairly) that he could not revert the pair of edits together, and feels that he only made two reversions (a view that the precise wording of 3RR disagrees with).

What is worse is that Prisonermonkeys is claiming that we are not applying

— 20:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Already blocked for one month by me. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Page

Dirk Kuyt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638266790 by Lukeno94 (talk) Reverted. Just accept that the new version actually looks way better. I know you agree, stop being hard-headed."
2. 21:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638265844 by C.Fred (talk) So-called "consensus" doesn't hold true in practice. Otherwise you would have to edit tons of other footballer edits in which the hyphens are grouped together."
3. 21:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638230969 by Lukeno94 (talk) You are not eligible to set any fabricated standard of any kind on your own."
4. 15:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638213239 by Lukeno94 (talk) Format much better and appealing for the eye."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Clear 3RR violation from someone who has been reverted by two separate users, and yet carries on reverting. Insists their change is better, even though it doesn't match the standard style for this sort of thing, and also insists that I must really agree with them etc. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected one month. This user may be switching IPs. Let me know if you see more edits elsewhere with the same pattern. EdJohnston (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Could you also revert back to the previous stable version please, EdJohnston? As is obvious above, I'm at 3 reverts myself, and don't want to take any chances. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Is this truly an edit war over style? Truly? I think this belongs on

WP:LAME. Jsharpminor (talk

) 01:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@Lukeno94: I'll reply on your user talk. EdJohnston (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [172]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [173]
2. [174]
3. [175]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Mezigue#Edit_War_HappyHolograms

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [176]

Comments:

. I have repeatedly explained in edit notes that these are not violations, and have even tried to explain them in detail in the article, but he simply reverts all changes made by me.

SanAnMan (talk) 14:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the
  dispute resolution. --slakr^\ talk
   / 03:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Page

Survivor: San Juan del Sur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Reception */ Citation needed"
2. 06:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Reception */ Citation needed"
3. 06:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "CITATION NEEDED"
4. 06:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638319499 by 169.231.58.247 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Page

Junaid Jamshed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "I have made my point on the talk page, please consult that."
2. 11:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "You are not accepting the clear-cut confession of blasphemy on the part of the living person himself, not conviction, but confession, hence the edit..."
3. Consecutive edits made from 11:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC) to 11:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
   1. 11:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "You can respond leisurely, I will not mind that."
   2. 11:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "Because he is now renowned as a blasphemer among the people he is famous in"
4. 10:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "I have already made my points there, I see no response to that."
5. Consecutive edits made from 09:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC) to 10:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
   1. 09:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "The commission of blasphemy accepted by the living person himself"
   2. 10:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Blasphemy */ Refer to the talk page, to stop the edit war."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 17:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Outside editor's view on the blasphemy allegation */"
2. 14:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Outside editor's view on the blasphemy allegation */"
3. 11:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Violation of BLP guidelines designed to protect living persions */"

Comments:

User is flat-out failing to comprehend that they are committing BLP violations, and is also flat-out failing to stop their contentious editing and wait for the talk page discussion to reach a consensus. User is also practically a SPA at this point, since a huge proportion of their edits have been on this article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Despite the addition of source, this user above kept on undoing the well-referenced edits of mine. I hope Wikipedia administrators will do justice, not based on my religion or religious standpoint. TheKnightoftheHeart (talk) 12:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• What a load of baloney. Your edits are not well-referenced (copyright violations of the same video on multiple sites being used as a reference for example), and they are heavily centering around your own translation, which is disputed by two separate editors who do understand Urdu. Even if you are right, then you are still violating BLP and every procedure in the book by trying to insist that he is most notable for what he has been accused of - which is utterly false. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• Blocked Wifione ^Message 18:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This user keeps inserting badly spelled slanted and/or revenge-driven edits that go contrary to given references and linked evidence within the Talk pages, both my own and in one of the articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BeyonderGod

I have previously filed complaints against him here and here. Help would be very appreciated. David A (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment You did not notify
  dispute resolution|. It might help. Thanks. Wifione ^Message
  17:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• Warned both editors. Page protected. Wifione ^Message 17:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I haven't said any bad slurs unlike you insulting my spelling/grammar where you misspelled easy words which I don't care with people online yet you insulted my IQ? Overall thank you Wifione for locking the page. Beyonder (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Beyonder

Page

Concord Production Inc. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Charliewolf79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "/* External links */"
2. 15:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "/* External links */"
3. 14:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "/* External links */"
4. 14:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "/* External links */"
5. 07:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "/* External links */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Additional final warning: [177] JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• WP:3RR, which he has technically broken. But I'm ready to infinitely overlook that in the case of spam links. Just saying as a matter of caution. Wifione ^Message
  17:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Note, I considered this getting close to abuse of Wikipedia - the editor has a very strong focus on one subject, though I do not see statements from this editor in line to what our terms of use proscribe, and the user is .. circumventing the spam blacklist - I did not look closer at this yet (considering to have a look at the other edits regarding this), but start to consider a block for that. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Also noting that the editor now seems aware of discussions - they self-reverted their last addition. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Page: Various articles, including Juelz Ventura, Renae Cruz and Sammie Rhodes

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Sammie Rhodes:

1. 1. [178]
   2. [179]

Juelz Ventura

1. 1. [180]
   2. [181]

There are more, I can find if needed.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [182]

Comments:
I'm uninvolved in all of this, so sanctions may be needed for the other party as well. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I've just spotted Qed237 is involved in this as well, just as much as HW, so he should be considered as well as above. This may need escalating to ANI, due to the nubmer of people involved, but I'll leave it down to the reviewing admin's discretion. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

This is absolute crap, and User:Mdann52 deserves to be sanctioned for bringing it. There is no doubt that the notability tags on these articles were inappropriately removed. Neither of these BLPs includes independent, reliable sourcing satisfying BLP/RS requirements. Neither includes a claim to notability under PORNBIO, the applicable SNG (the tinfoil trophies they claim for "scene" awards don't count toward notability per the express and eminently clear language of the SNG).

But, of course, this notice is procedurally invalid. No attempt to discuss. No prior warning. And as is obvious to any competent, good faith editor, 2 reverts on two different articles don't amount to a 3RR violation. Just more trumped-up harassment. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@

edit warring ≠ 3RR violation; 3RR is a brightline rule, not a right. Whether the tags are valid or not, there has been edit warring, they have not been discussed by either party, and that is the issue here. If you think my actions are inappropriate, feel free to take it to ANI. In any case, I have much better things to do than harass people. --Mdann52talk to me!

17:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Bullshit. I discussed, for example, here [183] and here [184] and here [185]. You didn't discuss before opening this or related discussions, and you ignored my attempts to open substantive discussion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks like open season here.

^{Imperatrix Mundi}

17:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

(

WP:3RR. And stating that the reporter to be sanctioned is just bollocks, AN/foo might be known for boomeranging a lot, but this is a clear cut case of edit warring. (t) Josve05a (c

) 17:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

(ec)You're just wrong. Note that I opened multiple discussions, which Mdann ignored; Mdann did not follow convention/practice here or at ANI; and that the tag removals, which were obviously contradicted by the applicable SNG, at least border on the vandalous/malicious, and at best show a lack of

WP:COMPETENCE. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk

) 18:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hullaballoo, you made a PROD nomination of Renae Cruz back in April 2014 but another editor removed the PROD. If you still think the article lacks notability, wouldn't it be normal to take it to AfD and abide by the consensus there? Your repeated additions of notability tags do not seem to be part of a good faith effort to reach an agreed-on result. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't add the tags initially. {[User:Redban]] put the tags on. Redban is a clumsy, and probably overzealous new editor, and some of his tagging has been lousy, but it's nowhere near as inaccurate as some editors involved in the overall dispute have claimed. I've looked at some of the tags, and where the tagging is accurate, restored it. In each of the BLPs where I restored the tags, there was no significant independent reliable sourcing, in many cases no reliable sourcing at all, and no credible claim to meeting the specific criteria of PORNBIO. (To the extent there's been an effort made to justify tag removal here, it uniformly rests on ignoring recent tightening up of PORNBIO, despite the overwhelming community support for the revisions).

I've nominated dozens of porn BLPs for AFD or PROD this year, with a very high accuracy rate. This has made me target for all sorts of harassment, on- and off-wiki, and the amount of support one gets from most of the administrative community for enforcing BLP and rules against promotional is vanishingly low. When I'm sick and tired of being treated like dirt, despite having 65,000 edits, done more BLP cleanup and improvement than 99.9% of the editors here, and having poured immense amounts of time into dealing with some of the most malicious folks out there trying to use Wikipedia to smear, you have no right to tell me I can't pull back. Suggesting I'm somehow deficient in good faith is appalling, and you should be ashamed of that comment. A few months ago, in an AFD discussion, an editor decided to cast aspersions, if not outright accusations, of racism against me (and others, but I was the main target).[186] Two admins characterized those comments as "appalling" bad faith. What was done about? Nothing. Not one thing. Not one bloody fucking thing. And that tolerance of atrocious misconduct has lead to escalation of misbehavior and ongoing harassment of me and other editors, of which this specious complaint is just a minor example. No More Mr Nice Wolfowitz (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the tags. The individuals are either notable, or they're not. If they're not, then take the article to

WP:AFD. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead}

18:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to offer a couple of observations. First off, I'll concur that HW puts in a tremendous amount of effort into BLP articles and has accomplished an impressive amount of "cleanup" with regard to the removal of vandalism and other "clutter". That said, as my 2nd point, I'd like offer that much of his perspective on content hinges enormously on the phrase "significant independent reliable sourcing" and his personal interpretation of it. He is very quick to revert content additions if the source is not acceptable. In my opinion, HW is somewhat jaded when it comes to a lot of content additions and often treats them as "spam", "trivia", "gossip", or "employee of the month awards" (for sourced, but non-Notable awards) without regard for the context to the subject. Again, these are just my observations, but for some reason HW and I interact fairly often. --

(Talk)

☮ღ☺ 00:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I remain baffled by the argument that when a policy calls for content to be removed "immediately" and "without waiting got discussion", one should not act quickly. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

clearly this isn't clear cut enough. I'm closing as no vio.

Spartaz ^Humbug!

01:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd argue there was edit warring spread over multiple pages, and there was enough evidence of edit warring, but I can see your viewpoint on this as well. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Ashtul reported by User:Melody Concerto (Result: )

Page

Skunk (weapon) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "Melody Concerto - I brought a source to support the change I made Dec 14. Nishidani undid it for no reason"
2. 14:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "I put a link that proofs info was inccorect. Nishidani didn't like it so he undid change!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "/* NPOV */ new section"
2. 15:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "/* NPOV */"
3. 15:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "/* NPOV */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Warned them twice about their reverting, noticed that the article was covered under discretiononary sanctions. Reporting under impression of 1/2 Revert Rule being in effect. Melody Concerto^talk 22:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Bonehill reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: )

Page:

talk | history | links | watch | logs

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

Previous version reverted to: [187]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Talk:Joshua_Bonehill#Joshua_Bonehill_socking

Comments:
User has socked under other accounts, is referred to as an internet troll by an RS. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not and have never been an internet troll, there is a conspiracy of bias left-wing users purposely making me out to be something I'm not at a wikipedia article involving me. I will not tolerate my name being dragged through the dirt for no reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonehill (talk • contribs) 21:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You're only known for publishing racist hoaxes in a hate rag that isn't worth wiping one's arse with. "Troll" is an excessively weak understatement of what you are, and still sourced. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

It dosn't matter if you are the subject of the article as you claim, or if you are "right". You were, undeniably, edit warring and probably need a block. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Spshu reported by User:75.162.212.197 (Result: Declined; filer blocked)

Page: One Magnificent Morning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Spshu (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 [194] 2 [195] 3 [196] 4 [197] 5 [198] 6 [199] 7 [200] 8 [201] 9 [202] 10 [203]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [204]

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

Comments:

spshu Adds and continues to readd false so-called "source" materials, which are false because even though several Saturday morning cartoons did sadly disappear from TV when One Magnificent Morning started, not all of them did. Ones that were specifically only on cable TV and satellite TV didn't disappear, and even if this were only about commercial broadcast TV, then even those didn't disappear completely. There are still some cartoons on NBC Kids (by Sprout Network), for example. It's not all a cartoon block, but cartoons are still there on Saturday mornings. But the false sources make inaccurate claims like "Saturday morning cartoons are no more" and "R.I.P., Saturday morning cartoons." So, even with edit-warring aside, this would still be a report about posting inaccurate "sources."

75.162.212.197 (talk) 08:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Declined No violation. Dear IP, the article is protected. Get an account, get
  neutral point of view. If you have a content issue, try dispute resolution. Thanks. Wifione ^Message
  10:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Wifione: I understand that the article is protected, but that's not the point. An autoconfirmed user already *has* tried removing those inaccurate sources from the article. But look at all the reverts that spshu made, yet he's not being accused of edit-warring even though the other editors were. Why not? So are you saying that it's "not edit-warring" if you, the admin., agree with what was repeatedly added to or otherwise repeatedly reverted in the article? Why should it only be considered "edit-warring" for one editor rather than both (according to you), even though the edit-warring warning even says something about "even if you are correct," and other admins even say things like "it doesn't matter if you're correct or not; it's still edit-warring"?

75.162.212.197 (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Dear ip, the auto-confirmed user was blocked because the said auto-confirmed user was not discussing changes on the talk page of the article. My suggestion would be, try discussing the content issue on the talk page of the article as Spshu is the one who is following an appropriate
  WP:BRD cycle. Spshu has been awaiting responses on the talk page of the article since the start of this month. Proceed to the talk page and discuss the issue there, rather than repeatedly reverting. If discussions don't lead to resolution, follow dispute resolution. Wifione ^Message
  11:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, user:Wifione, for your response. Well you're saying that spshu has been doing BRD--a while back, anyway. I can see that. But not now, though. Even so, he's been edit-warring too. If someone is doing BRD but still keeps on reverting and reverting, does that not still count as edit-warring? So if a writer posts a comment to the talk page and then reverts, that's "not edit-warring"? How about when he keeps reverting while not still discussing? Doesn't that then still become edit-warring for him? If not, then why not? And if I were the i.p. who had been discussing with spshu before, but then kept reverting and reverting like he is, would I also get a pass from being accused of edit-warring just because I had been discussing in the past, or would there be some difference? And if so, then what would that supposed "difference" have been?

75.162.212.197 (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• I've Blocked the filer for two weeks for block evasion.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Solo12gaug reported by User:24.226.133.134 (Result: Filer blocked)

Page: Saleen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Solo12gauge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: original undoing

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [205]
2. [206]
3. [207]
4. [208]

user keep trying to remove this section: transaction with a publicly traded shell company owned by David Weiner, a marijuana pennystock financer. ^[1][2]

This is factual information that provides some background as to how Saleen went public. The user has done dozen of edit on Saleen related pages and he seems to be only doing these with user Murdock7.

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

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

When trying to talk the issue out on the user talk page he removed it. User can't provide any reason why he is removing the comment other than "it is irrelevant", but he can't explain why it would be irrelevant. It is clear that the user is trying to protect Saleen's reputation. David Weiner and his W-Net fund are behind Saleen going public as per Saleen S1 SEC filling: http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/ipos/filing.ashx?filingid=7747636 and he is a marijuana pennystock financier as confirmed by the citations I provided which keep getting removed.

Comments:

• Page has been fully-protected and a discussion (of sorts) is underway on the talkpage. If 3RR blocks are being given out, then all of the involved parties will probably need blocking, since I'm fairly sure they all violated the rule (in the filer's case, I think their revert count has actually exceeded the double figure mark...) The IP above is giving quite a poor representation of the topic, as they are deliberately misrepresenting Solo12gauge's position. The IPs trying to edit-war the information in haven't ever actually provided a source that verifies their claims, are clearly pushing agendas in their edit summaries (even a drunken toad could see that), and Solo12gauge clearly has elaborated on the "irrelevant" comment in the edit summaries at the very least. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Should also note that the filer was blocked. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

References

1. ^ http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-18/legal-pot-sets-off-penny-stock-frenzy.html
2. ^ http://nypost.com/2014/12/12/sec-weed-wackers-sparked-growlife-fears/

• Result: Filer 24.226.133.134 (talk · contribs) has been blocked 60 hours by User:Ks0stm for violation of 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

User:194.54.154.139 reported by User:Steelbeard1 (Result: Blocked; Page semi-protected )

Page: Eric Carmen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 194.54.154.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [209]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:

Another IP address, also originating from Crimea, reverted again at [214]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Both IPs Blocked – for a period of 120 hours Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks as if there is a sockpuppet in the form of User:GATW. See [215]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Add User:77.35.8.175 from Russia. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Due to the possible socking, I've semiprotected Eric Carmen for two months. EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

User:VediKboy reported by User:TopGun (Result: Blocked)

Page: Inter-Services Intelligence activities in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: VediKboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [216]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [217]
2. [218]
3. [219]
4. [220]
5. [221]
6. [222]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [223]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [224]

Comments: The user is not discussing in anyway and reverts only inspite of my attempt to persuade him to discuss. Instead of using the article talkpage, I went on to start a discussion on his user talk so as to give him notifications of my each message but my posts

WP:ARBIPA but he has shown no intention of stopping; he has reverted 3 users in total and has reverted twice after the final warning. --lTopGunl (talk

) 07:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• 81.156.250.214 is Nangparbat. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The IP just made 3 edits / 1 effective edit, all here, so I have no idea how you reached that conclusion but if it is, it wouldn't affect the spirit of this report and hardly the letter of it as it would still be 5 reverts by VediKboy with clear intention to revert more and discuss nothing after the final warning and infact be non responsive on talk page. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Yet another revert adding personal commentary by changing the word 'declaration' (affidavit as per source) to 'hearsay' [225] and no discussion, though he left me a
  WP:BATTLE message to stop being an abpara bot [226]. --lTopGunl (talk
  ) 11:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Waited to see if there would be any discussion, but still no response by the user. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
• New (8th?) revert [227]. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. VediKboy has continued to make similar changes to the article while this report was open (often using the word 'conspiracy'), while making no effort to participate on the talk page as advised on 15 December. This post to TopGun suggesting he was 'filled with hatred' helped to tip the balance toward an admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

User:StePAhi reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: No action, taken to AfD, warned about AGF )

Page

Katja Glieson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC) "Just because the subject has been in the news lately doesn't mean the subject is notable."
2. 22:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC) "Only covered for one insignificant event. Not notable enough to be on wikipedia"
3. 22:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC) "This is obvious bullying."
4. 01:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638716567 by Loriendrew (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User warned on their talk page, replacing contested PROD numerous times. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 01:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

This is clearly bullying. StePAhi (talk) 01:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Note No, it's not bullying: you were edit-warring about the deletion, but since you eventually worked it through, there will be no sanction. Please do not do that again, and please assume good faith: your AfD rationale is a bit lacking in that area as well. Acroterion (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Ramiericson reported by User:Summichum (Result: Calmer waters)

Page

Mufaddal Saifuddin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC) "removed Pointy content by Summichum. Qwetyus previously agreed on removing this content from the page. Because there is already a main page for this."

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mufaddal_Saifuddin&oldid=636868233

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mufaddal_Saifuddin&oldid=636855122

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mufaddal_Saifuddin&oldid=636854836

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

the user has resumed in removing well cited content instantly after coming from a ban, the ban was also placed due to these activities. Now again doing the same removal of content which is related to the subjectSummichum (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not well-cited material. This is

Talk:53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra)#Survey + NPOV violation has some discussion of the underlying content dispute. QVVERTYVS (hm?

) 11:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Not blocked Summichum, I'm closing this report right now. If you feel disruption is ongoing, come back and open another report. Qwertyus, thanks for the note. Will take a deeper look if disruption resumes. Wifione ^Message 16:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Dj Biswas reported by User:Sitush (Result: Blocked)

Page: Gauri Pradhan Tejwani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dj Biswas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [228]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [229]
2. [230]
3. [231]
4. [232]
5. [233]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Dj_Biswas#December_2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Gauri Pradhan Tejwani#Indic scripts

Comments:
User is essentially

MOS:BOLD etc. They are showing no sign of wanting to talk. - Sitush (talk

) 21:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked till DJ Biswas confirms they completely understand our BLP and edit warring policies. Wifione ^Message 17:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)