Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive199

User:DrKiernan reported by TFD (talk) (Result: Blocked 48 hours )

Page: Line of succession to the British throne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 06:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

1. 11:38, 24 October 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Line of succession */ per Master (form of address)#Current usage")
2. 12:52, 24 October 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "this is a 21st century encyclopedia not one written in the 1800s")
3. 20:04, 24 October 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "explained edits are no vandalism, and calling them such is a violation of policy")
4. 02:12, 25 October 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "unsourced: 3RR does not apply, unsourced material may be removed at any time when concerning living people")

• Diff of warning: here and previous warning for 3RR here.

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [1] 20:08, 24 October 2012

Comments:
DrKiernan's comment, "unsourced material may be removed at any time when concerning living people" is not useful. One of the sources given is the family of the individuals. -TFD (talk) 06:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours I had actually prepared to issue a final warning instead of issuing a block here, trying to give the benefit of the doubt over a technical violation of 3RR. Instead, on looking at the user's talk page, I found a clear intent to continue to edit war indefinitely, and some borderline personal attacks against other editors. Given that, I instead issued the block. As I stated on the user's talk page, they may have been correct on what they wanted in the article in question, but their behavior is damaging to their position. If they are correct, then behavior is harming Wikipedia content, and behavior needs to stop so that doesn't happen any more. Jayron32 13:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

User:64.134.134.64 reported by User:EEMIV (Result: Blocked 31 hours )

Page: United Federation of Planets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 64.134.134.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [2]
• 2nd revert: [3]
• 3rd revert: [4]
• 4th revert: [5]
• 5th revert: [6]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:United_Federation_of_Planets#Econom

Comments:
Edit warring + some doses of incivility. At this point, with warnings and requests and talk-page prompts from multiple editors with no response -- except some insults -- probably also qualifies for a black via ARV.

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. Was going to block him earlier today before you filed this and I got side tracked and forgot about it. So I have blocked him now. -DJSasso (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Legalactionjackson reported by User:Yunshui (Result: blocked 31hrs)

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

Previous version reverted to: [8]

• 1st revert: [9]
• 2nd revert: [10]
• 3rd revert: [11]
• 4th revert: [12]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14] (a request on the user's talkpage to engage on article talkpage - at the time, I was responding to a request on my user talkpage to block his opponents in this edit war)

Comments:
User self-identifies as the father of the article's subject ([15] - reversions to same version as Legalactionjackson), and appears to have also made several reversions under an IP address whilst logged out (see Special:Contributions/2.125.111.139). He has been reverted by multiple editors, including (now) me. His latest post at the helpdesk [16] may also be interpreted as a legal threat. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

VIGILANT CITIZEN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also seems to be the same person, now trying to perform the same edits. CaptRik (talk) 12:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Both accounts blocked by Materialscientist. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

User:TheGrimOfDeath reported by User:GSK (Result: Declined)

Page: Call of Duty: Black Ops: Declassified (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheGrimOfDeath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [17]

• 1st revert: [18]
• 2nd revert: [19]
• 3rd revert: [20]
• 4th revert: [21]

• Comments left on my talk page: [22] [23]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Did not resolve dispute on talk page, but did address the user's behavior on their talk page.

Comments: User is demonstrating signs of WP:OWN, completely ignoring WP:CIVIL, and telling others they are vandalizing the article if they change things the user does not approve of. They are unwilling to discuss and are open to swearing ("I think Hostile Mode is a fucking mode" when re-adding it to the infobox, and I know WP isn't censored, but come on). Left rude messages on my talk page multiple times accusing me of vandalizing the article, and that their largely unreferenced information was completely correct. --GSK ● talk ● evidence 16:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• Declined. The user didn't edit the article after the 3RR warning. Indeed, they haven't edited the article for almost 24 hours. Some of their comments are unwarranted, but the user is new and the comments are more heated than attacking (new users often use the word "vandalism" incorrectly). Feel free to re-report if the user resumes their disruptive edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

[[User:]] reported by User:William Jockusch (Result: Declined)

Page: Binders full of women (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

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

• 1st revert: [diff]
• 2nd revert: [diff]
• 3rd revert: [diff]
• 4th revert: [diff]

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

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

Comments:

I am not reporting any particular user. This is a situation where a majority of editors are trying to enforce a highly POV version of an article. If there is a better forum for that, I would be interested to know it.

William Jockusch (talk)

Perhaps WP:NPOV/N would be a better place for this? a13ean (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• Declined. I don't even know what article you're referring to. Missed that extra header with the name of the article. A13ean's suggestion sounds reasonable if you can't resolve the issues on the article talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Gtwfan52 reported by User:gamweb (Result: No violation)

Page: Steinert High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gtwfan52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Previous version reverted to: [25]

• 1st revert: [26]
• 2nd revert: [27]
• 3rd revert: [28]
• 4th revert: [29]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31] and user pages [32] [33].

Comments:
User repeatedly deletes School Logo from Steinert High School, regardless that I demonstrated that the same Logo appears on the High School's web site. User appears to participate in Good Faith discussion while logged in, then logs out to act anonymously. Now claims that I did not discuss issue with him, when discussion is clearly visible on article's talk page and his user page. The close timing of edits appears to be more than just coincidence. Perhaps Admins have tools to trace the anonymous I.P. Gamweb (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• No violation This seems to be a fight over a logo and whether it's fair use for this article. There's no edit-warring by Gtwfan52, and the allegation of sockpuppetry is frivolous. I suggest the reporter continue the discussion on the article talk page. Don't reinsert the logo unless you have a clear consensus for doing so. Also, someone should resolve the copyright status of the logo.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

User:109.154.249.15 reported by User:Santos30 (Result: Both editors warned)

Page: Crown of Castile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 109.154.249.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [34]

• 1st revert: [35]
• 2nd revert: [36]
• 3rd revert: [37]
• 4th revert: [38]

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

thanks.--Santos30 (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• Warned. Santos, you did not warn the IP of edit-warring. You did not notify the IP of this report (I've done so). You, too, were warring in the article. Therefore, I've warned both of you. Any more warring edits will result in a block. Keep discussing the issues on the talk page (I've warned the IP of personal attacks).Bbb23 (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• • Note I suspect that the IP anonymous is part of a campaign to impose changes unreferenced, and penalize me with a blockade. What should I do if another user (IP) makes changes to the same sense without going to the talk page?. Thanks.--Santos30 (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Futasoku reported by User:Xanthoxyl (Result: Warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [40]

1. 05:51, 23 October 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 519322564 by Nihil novi (talk)")
2. 06:50, 23 October 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 519337966 by Volunteer Marek (talk) Before someone undids this edit, please explain in prior on my discussion page.")
3. 21:08, 23 October 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 519344416 by Nihil novi (talk) Conrad later became a British citizen.")
4. 05:23, 24 October 2012 (edit summary: "To Nihil Novi: I've incorporated the fact you've given in my edit.")
5. 18:40, 24 October 2012 (edit summary: "I need to list the")
6. 18:42, 24 October 2012 (edit summary: "I need to list the fact that he was later naturalized in the UK. I can see that you are interested in Poland or a Pole yourself, but that does not mean Undid revision 519615616 by Futasoku (talk)")
7. 06:08, 25 October 2012 (edit summary: "Stop vandalizing the page. I will report you (Nihil novi) and Volunteer Marek (which I think is your duplicate account) if you try to revert my edit one more time. What you claim about other writers aren't supported.")
8. 06:31, 25 October 2012 (edit summary: "Conrad became a British citizen in 1886. I have provided a reference.")
9. 01:58, 26 October 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 519854584 by Nihil novi (talk) What you claim is unsupported.")
10. 07:47, 26 October 2012 (edit summary: "Don't try to define the word 'ancestry' by yourself. And at least three people on the talk page is strongly biased towards Poland. That includes Volunteer Merek and Nihil novi. You can check that by reading their user contribution page.")
11. 03:30, 27 October 2012 (edit summary: "This is nothing vague. This is ridiculous. I just listed a fact and suddenly some Poles keep reverting my edits because they don't want to lose a great writer to Britain. In fact, they already did in 1886.")
12. 04:42, 27 October 2012 (edit summary: "He did not have Polish citizenship. He was born in Russia. He later acquired the British citizenship. The only link he has with Poland was that his father was a Polish translator. The word ancestry or descent suits here.")

• Diff of warning: here

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41]

Comments:
Very aggressive, ignores all cited evidence, repeatedly accuses other editors of being Polish nationalists after having been warned. Xanthoxyl ^< 05:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Warned. I have issued a stern warning to Futasoku, not only for the edit-warring, but for the accusations of bias and sock puppetry against other editors. I am not blocking because (a) the account is relatively new; (b) the most egregious edit-warring occurred on October 25 but the warning didn't occur until after that; and (c) there have been no reversions for over 10 hours. As an aside, Xanthoxyl, please don't list consecutive edits as separate reverts; they are not.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Those aren't consecutive edits. He really did revert that many times. (The reason #5 and #6 are so close together chronologically is that he accidentally self-reverted between them; I didn't notice that.) Xanthoxyl ^< 16:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

#5 and #6 were the ones I was referring to - they shouldn't count as two reverts. As long as you understand, no big deal. I just figured as long as I was here, I'd be picky - it's a much clearer report than many.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Derrick Chris reported by User:Wikipedical (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [42]

• 1st revert: [43]
• 2nd revert: [44]
• 3rd revert: [45]
• 4th revert: [46]
• 5th revert: [47]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49]

Comments:
I have left clear edit summaries justifying removal of content citing Wikipedia policy, as well as leaving a warning on user's talk page. Two other editors left warnings on his talk page for disruptive behavior also. User:Derrick Chris has reverted without once leaving an edit summary (and has also edited with damaging behavior, see this edit.) -- Wikipedical (talk) 07:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment- when I originally reverted, I thought the user might be Indonesian with no english (this is a common problem on WP:NOTDIR articles about South east asian television stations and services) however the 'damaging behaviour' edit from above suggests an attitude of an english speaker with not much clue as to what wikipedia is about. It would be appreciated if someone reverts the last revert at Indovision and possible finds cause to act on the issue. SatuSuro 14:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Clear edit warring, blocked for 48 hours. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Clarence House reported by Shrike (talk)/WP:RX (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Israel and the apartheid analogy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 16:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: [50]

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

1. 12:48, 27 October 2012 (edit summary: "/* By notable authors */")
2. 13:15, 27 October 2012 (edit summary: "/* By notable authors */")
3. 16:42, 27 October 2012 (edit summary: "/* Crime of apartheid and Israel */")

• Diff of warning: here

Comments:The dispute is about Haaretz poll that was removed pending the discussion.Though user change his edits a little he still restore the same poll.The article fails under WP:ARBPIA area.The user was warned that he was engaged in edit warring nevertheless he still reverted. —Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

User:AnkhMorpork reported by User:Nableezy (Result: Warning given by Salvio)

Page: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AnkhMorpork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [51]

• 1st revert: [52]
• 2nd revert: [53]

Under a topic-wide 1RR. An ArbCom clarification (here) allows for notifications of sanctions to be given by non-admins. AnkhMorpork apparently feels he is entitled to repeatedly remove the log that shows he has been notified.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: On user's talk

Comments:
I dont see a need for a block, but the log of the notification should be restored and AM instructed not to remove it again. nableezy - 23:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Is not this matter is already reviewed by administrator, here? Why more attention is needed? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

No, Ankh's violation of the 1RR has not been reviewed by any other administrator. Thank you though for providing your usual quality of comment. nableezy - 23:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Nableezy requested that admin Ed Johnston who regularly participates in I-P disputes issue this notification. He declined but Nableezy then unilaterally opted to issue his own notification and 'record' this in the official log. The log states that "Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it." Nableezy "logging" of his notification obviously did not adhere to these guidelines, primarily as there was no "basis" as Nableezy had already been informed. I have requested advice from Ed on how to proceed with this persistent trolling and will abide with his advice. Ankh.Morpork 23:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I had forgotten that ArbCom clarified that the notification not come from an admin, so I issued it myself. You then broke the 1RR. nableezy - 23:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, please do not modify your comment after it has already been responded to. But, to address the point, see the number of notifications done by Shrike or brewcrewer, neither of them admins. And, again, see the linked AC clarification that allows the notification to be issued by any editor, not restricted to admins. nableezy - 23:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

This does not obviate you of the need to provide a "basis for the notification" which was not found by the administrator that you first approached. This is a case of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Ankh.Morpork 23:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I have just reverted your undo, Ankh. I think we can close this as "warned", but if you revert once again, I'll block you. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Based on your contributions, the notification is certainly more applicable than not. Warned by Salvio and closed thus. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

User:HowardStrong reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: 48 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [55]

• 1st revert: [56]
• 2nd revert: [57]
• 3rd revert: [58]
• 4th revert: [59]
• 5th revert: [60]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Bitcoin#Use_of_the_word_.22currency.22

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Although Howard continuously blanks his talk page, part of the basis for a 48-hour block is this warning from October 5, which Howard has not heeded.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Gokone reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Warned)

Page: Miguel Facussé Barjum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gokone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [62]
• 2nd revert: [63]
• 3rd revert: [64]
• 4th revert: [65]
• 5th revert: [66]
• 6th revert: [67]
• 7th revert: [68]
• 8th revert: [69]
• 9th revert: [70]
• 10th revert: [71]
• 11th revert: [72]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [73]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [74]

Comments: Note: not a 3rr report, instead an edit-warring report. Communication attempted, but apart from one early post on the talk page, no response, only continued reverts. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Warned.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Nochoje and User:Avaya1 reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: One editor blocked 48 hours)

Page: Greece (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nochoje (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Avaya1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Slow but persistent revert-warring between two editors over several days. Topic is whether to use 2011 figures or rather projected figures for 2012 for economic data in infobox. No talkpage discussion from either side.

Reverts

Nochoje

1. 9 October
2. 9 October
3. 21 October
4. 25 October
5. 26 October
6. 27 October
7. 28 October

Avaya1:

1. 24 October
2. 25 October
3. 26 October
4. 27 October
5. 28 October

Warnings

1. Warning to both parties: [75]
2. Warning to Avaya1 from another third party [76].

Avaya1 has not yet edited since the warnings and has neither responded to them nor continued to revert, while Nochoje has reacted with a refusal to initiate talkpage discussion on his part [77], and has continued reverting since.

Comments:
Reported by neutral uninvolved party. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Note. I blocked Nochoje for 48 hours given the length of the battle and the obduracy re discussion. Given the warning to Avaya with no subsequent misconduct, I have not blocked them at this point.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

User:OperationPipi reported by User:PortugeseIndian (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Operation C (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:OperationPipi

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

• 1st revert: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Operation_C&diff=520023821&oldid=520015067
• 2nd revert: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Operation_C&diff=520214065&oldid=520213134
• 3rd revert: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Operation_C&diff=520216320&oldid=520216154
• 4th revert: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Operation_C&diff=520218126&oldid=520216358

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:OperationPipi

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None

Comments:

Users 92.13.77.121 and OperationPipi have been edit warring on the article Operation C. Both were warned by user Shaun9876 but still continued to edit war on the article. Can something be done about this??? Thanks!PortugeseIndian (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. The IP and OperationPipi.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

User:86.156.161.55 reported by User:SuperMarioMan (Result: 31 hours)

Page: Murder of Meredith Kercher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.156.161.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [78]

• 1st revert: [79]
• 2nd revert: [80]
• 3rd revert: [81]
• 4th revert: [82]
• 5th revert: [83]
• 6th revert: [84]

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

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

Comments:

This IP address has been edit-warring against multiple editors over the last three to four days - their most recent revert being their sixth in 24 hours. The purpose of these repeated reverts has been the removal of all or part of a newly-added paragraph on the basis that sourced statements within are "irrelevant". SuperMarioMan 21:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

User:HeslinJ reported by User:Qworty (Result: Page protected)

User has reverted sourced information more than three times today, despite warnings on his talk page from different editors:

[87]

• Malformed report, but Page protected because there's too much edit-warring from multiple editors. Develop consensus on the talk page, please. For the record, I protected because the article is under warring from multiple sides (reading the history of Marsha Mehran), so evidently discussion needs to take place. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 18:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Joefromrandb reported by User:88.104.5.244 (Result: Both blocked separately for 48 hours)

Page: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)
User being reported: Joefromrandb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

[88]

[89]

[90]

[91]

[92]

[93]

[94]

[95]

[96]

(Sorry, I didn't get them all; there's loads more)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [97]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See discussion in above-linked sections

Comments:

Both editors blocked - IP by Ks0stm (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Joe by TParis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), both for 48 hours. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

User:175.110.147.104 reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: A day)

Page: List of Urdu-language poets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 175.110.147.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: Rashid sandeelvi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [98]

• 1st revert: [99]
• 2nd revert: [100]
• 3rd revert: [101]
• 4th revert: [102]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [103]

Comments:
After IP user's non-notable entries were reverted out of the list a user account was created, which did same edits as the IP. Now today IP user again partially restored his/her edit. --SMS ^Talk 13:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of a day Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Greetings,

I made some valid updates to a political candidate's wiki page, Cheri Bustos. These were valid updates and properly sourced. I do not make a habit of editing wiki pages. Not 1/2 hour later, most of my valid and properly sourced edits were reverted by a frequent editor to this site. I happened to notice that this editor (who I informed on his talk page, per wiki guidelines) has a very detailed trail of editing political pages. He appears to only edit the pages of Democrats with negative information. While this is probably valid, I intended to balance the article with positive items directly related to negative things he and another frequent user to the page have added. How can this not be fair and reasonable. Someone even created an "endorsements" section with negative items, but REMOVED a section I added on a key endorsement this candidate received from a major newspaper in the district. Her opponent's wiki site is filled with similar endorsement. He removed it wholesale. He also removed a study that directly related to an item about Catholics and contraception. He also removed a quote on a technicality. A losing primary candidate stated a Senator who is endorsing Bustos, did not specifically mention qualifications. When I added a quote that listed qualifications, this editor removed it. This is vandalism. I added stuff that was well cited and pertinent. My *thought* is he is watching this page for anything positive and removing it. I smell an agenda here. I only wanted to add balance. Please resolve this war. My additions should stay. Thanks. First down comets (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Johnsopc reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Golden triangle (English universities) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Johnsopc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 00:50, 28 October 2012, in which the lead includes the London School of Economics (LSE) and Kings College London as members of the "golden triangle" of English universities

• 1st revert: 00:01, 31 October 2012, restored LSE and King's to the lead
• 2nd revert: 00:33, 1 November 2012, restored LSE and King's to the lead
• 3rd revert: 00:38, 1 November 2012, restored LSE and King's to the lead, logged out as User:82.31.132.160
• 4th revert: 00:55, 1 November 2012, restored LSE and King's to the lead

Comments

This is just 54 minutes outside the 24-hour period, and the user was warned before his fourth revert, so I'm reporting it as a 3RR violation.

Regarding the logged-out revert, User:82.31.132.160 has previously acknowledged being Johnsopc (diff).

I warned Johnsopc that he was about to violate 3RR at 00:49, 1 November 2012. He acknowledged the warning at 00:51, 1 November 2012, and made his fourth revert four minutes after the acknowledgement.

It's also worth noting that Johnsopc removed from the lead on 5 October 2012 that "King's College London and the London School of Economics are not universally included as part of the grouping." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain the timeline a bit more ? I did not revert anything in knowledge of a violation. Once you started to engage in a conversation on the articles talk page there were no further revisions as far as I can see. I think the way you, as a clearly more experienced user, are handling this issue is a bit unprofessional to be honest. Hypatia (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Also looking at the edit history I think User:SlimVirgin has a history of being in editing wars on this article and has violated the same rule she/he is reporting me for in spirit by making negligible edits to revert the article the his/her version. Hypatia (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours John, please read up on 3RR appropriately and kindly do not cross this line again. May I also request you to kindly use your username in your signature rather than using an alias? Wifione ^Message 01:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Festermunk reported by User:Carolmooredc (Result: 1 week)

Page: RT (TV network) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Festermunk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [104] wholesale revert to a version previously rewritten as too POV by two editors]
• 2nd revert: [105] Revert of material he didn't like, though after I explained the POV of his revert in WP:DRN discussion he agreed to change it back but insisted he'd change more of it; I'm not touching it myself right now.
• 3rd revert: [106] Removal of important NPOV Stephen Cohen sentences explaining that despite the pro-government slant, “any intelligent viewer can sort this out.(i.e., propaganda from non-propaganda).
• 4th revert: [107] Removal of much discussed historical info about person chosen as editor; he only wants it in the criticism section.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [108]. Note that I mention here Festermunk's recent block on this same article for 3rr but obviously Festermunk did not take heed.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The edit history shows efforts to engage Festermunk, mostly ignored by him until after he made all these changes today. These include: [109]; [110]; [111]. I then filed a Dispute Resolution case notice after he mentioned "Arbitration." See Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#RT_.28TV_network.29 discussion with volunteer.

Comments:
User: Festermunk has constantly added negative information and opinion to this article and deleted neutral and positive information. His basic view is such positive information is just a minority opinion and doesn't belong. After his first block on this article another editor and I cleaned it up to add more neutral or positive info, deleting some WP:Undue negative info and especially primary source opinion. As soon as Festermunk returned to this article he reverted most of our changes in a series of edits, which were reverted back in this one edit by another editor to our more NPOV version. After WP:Dispute Resolution, where Festermunk largely retained his previous views about adding criticism and removing neutral/positive material, he again reverted back to his version of the Controversy section which I reverted here per the previous editor's revert.

Meanwhile as part of the edit warring behavior, Festermunk has been quite uncivil. The Volunteer at Dispute Resolution told him on his talk page he was being uncivil in the Dispute Resolution. (I complained at length about incivility in my original WP:DNR notice.) I then complained at his talk page about two more new incidents of incivility here and mentioned a possible Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. But then I saw he'd done 3rr again so decided to complain here.

Frankly his POV against RT (TV Network) is so overwhelmingly strong, I don't think he can be allowed to edit this article or he will constantly revert to uncivil edit warring behavior. CarolMooreDC 05:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

"Frankly his POV against RT (TV Network) is so overwhelmingly strong, I don't think he can be allowed to edit this article" I hope all the administrators dealing with this case read this sentence carefully and then think about the kind of opposition I've had to deal with in editing the RT article. As per this edit, I tried directing the user's attention to Wikipedia editing guidelines that would disprove her battery of charges, namely thatWikipedia articles (with properly referenced sources) need not be written from that viewpoint are "consequently objectively true", but written in a way that "describe debates rather than engage in them.", that the NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias. and that Wikipedia's neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we should or must "give equal validity" to minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) views. but unfortunately this was all to no avail.

Generalities aside, I'lll deal with the specifics

• 1st issue- As per the DNR on RT, there are at least two occasions in which a third-party observer (user Nolelander) has said that the lede for the criticism and controversy section is not needed

a) under the, "RT (TV network) discussion" sub-section, in which the user writes (as the discussion is lengthy, I suggest using the control F function to find the specific text being referred to), "3) Lead for controversy section seems like a convenience, but not critical."

b) under the , "Threaded discussions of 8 issues" (point 3) sub-section, in which the user writes, "Turning to the issue of an intro paragraph within the Reception/Issues section: It is best to omit it"

User CarolMooreDC made no response/no relevant comment to the user's suggestion, so as per Wikipedia:Silence and consensus, I removed the intro paragraph.

• 2nd issue - I don't understand her argument, how can I be guilty of something I haven't done?
• 3rd issue - I removed the Cohen quote because it (seemed - admittedly, that is subjective) wasn't relevant information constituting a defense of RT, though if editors have qualms with this edit they are within their Wikipedia rights to rever this as per WP:BRD. However, aside from an allegation of NPOV, I don't see what Wikipedia editing guideline I am violating.
• 4th issue - We established on the DNR on RT that a paragraph on Margarita Simonyan and that fitting that paragraph in a supra-section entitled, 'RT Staff' can be appropriate (see the "Changes to the RT article" sub-section of the RT section on DNR). As all of the content in that paragraph renders the information that User CarolMoore put about Simonyan in the history otiose, I removed the information as per Wikipedia editing policies and guidelines. Festermunk (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI, for convenience I mostly described the reverts in question because the reverts usually were hidden in a mass of new material. I complained about his reverts early in the day and then disabused User:Festermunk of his blind notion that we agreed on all points at the end of the the WP:DRN discussion at this diff. So there was no excuse for his going into a 3rd and 4th set of reverts, given his previous 3rr block and my previous 3rr warning to him about edit warring. CarolMooreDC 15:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course you won't find the 3rd and 4th set of reverts in DNR that's because we didn't talk about them in there! (at least, not directly anyway) Festermunk (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week. I've also warned Festermunk that if after expiration of this block they resume the same battleground behavior, they may be indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

FWIW: I concur with the block. I'm a volunteer at the dispute resolution noticeboard and user Festermunk has been very belligerent and uncivil there, including posting obscenities on the DRN case (the case is related to this RT article). The also don't seem interested in achieving consensus, and they appear to be strongly inclined to impose a negative POV on the article. --Noleander (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Omar-Toons reported by User:Fort-Henry (Result: Warned)

• On October 23, user Dzlinker added some information to the article Fkih Ben Saleh
• User Omar-Toons reverted this contribution here [112] using, as usual, his impoliteness, rudeness and lack of education (using once again the word stupidity).
• I put back the deleted information (well, stating that the famous Moroccan prostitute, Karima El Mahroug or Ruby, was born in Fkih Ben Saleh ) with an appropriate reference (an article from The Telegraph)
• Omar-Toons erased [113] the information with the reference giving this argument: ‘’’Not a wiki article, create a wiki article that respects biographies requirements then put a link if you want’’’
• I undid his vandalism here [114] stating that an article will be created for Ruby.
• He erased the content once again [115] stating that it is not a wiki article…
• I undid this illogical contribution [116] believing that the information is sourced and authentic so it should remain in the article…
• Finally, Omar-Toons undid [117] my last modification stating, this time that ‘’’ NOT A WIKI ARTICLE, NOTORIETY NOT PROVEN AT ALL’’’

Since I do not want to be dragged into an edit war, I would like administrators to tell this contributor to not initiate such situations and to be collaborative.

Omar-Toons already received two warnings even in the Italian wiki for edit wars, please see here [118]

Thanks

Fort-Henry (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

In an edit war, usually, two sides are involved.

Unfortunately, here, that seems to be more a POV pushing coming from Fort-Henry than an edit war : he insists that a "prostitute" involved in the Berlusconi gate has enough notoriety to be added to the article, without considering the fact that this "notoriety" is disputed.

Oh, and by the way, I didn't do more than 3 reverts in the last 24 hours, while Fort-Henry did 4 reverts, then, maybe he is the one who initiates the edit war.

--Omar-toons (talk) 12:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The chronological order explains everything. Omar-Toons kept inventing arguments to erase the content. After all, if Karima El Mahroug has no notoriety who else may have.She is known worldwide. Thanks to be collaborative and stop insulting others Fort-Henry (talk) 13:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

And could you please show us where the notoriety of El Mahroug has been disputed? By who and when? If the notoriety has been disputed no one would think add such content to the above mentioned article. Where is that disputed? Thanks Fort-Henry (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Btw, seems that I'm not the only one who considers that this person hasn't to be cited in the article! Why? Because Wikipedia works like that and, then, Fort-Henry is the one who has to understand that the aim of Wikipedia isn't to share anything --Omar-toons (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! I will talk directly to that user. Fort-Henry (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Warned. Both editors were edit-warring. Both should be blocked. Fort-Henry raised the same issue at WP:ANI, which isn't helpful. That said, both editors seem to have calmed down. However, any resumption of the battle will be met with blocks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

User:207.225.131.141 reported by User:Bgwhite (Result: 1 week)

Page: King Janno (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 207.225.131.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [119]
• 2nd revert: [120]
• 3rd revert: [121]
• 4th revert: [122]
• 5th revert: [123]
• 6th revert: [124]
• 7th revert: [125]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [126]

Comments:
This is for the continued removal of AfD notice. Bgwhite (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Blocked for both edit-warring and persistent disruptive editing, including other articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Rhode Island Red reported by User:GeorgeLouis (Result: Closed)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page: Frank L. VanderSloot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rhode Island Red (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [127] Rhode Island Red prefers the version on the left, and GeorgeLouis prefers the version on the right.

• 1st revert: [128]
• 2nd revert: [129]
• 3rd revert: [130]
• 4th revert: [131]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Rhode_Island_Red#3RR_warning_on_vanderSloot_BLP

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot#Improving_GLBT_section

Comments:

I am trying to get the Gay-rights section into proper shape by proposing one new paragraph at a time. A previous attempt at a wholesale improvement to the entire Section was reverted by a different editor (not Rhode Island Red).[132] Perhaps narrowing the focus would help move the article off dead center. Editing was Blocked for one week, and the conversation was taken to the Talk Page.
There was also a reversion by Rhode Island Red of an entirely different Section.

Reply

I’m getting really tired of Frank’s disingenuous conduct in general, and this trumped up edit warring accusation in particular. First of all, I did not violate 3RR -- Frank knows it -- but he’s trying to use one innocuous edit, which he knows full well is innocuous, to back up his charge. The 3rd revert he listed was a self-reversion,[133] made because I had previously reverted to the wrong version – it was a simple self-correction so as to not lose one set of minor intermediate changes. I would normally be reluctant to even go that close to the 3RR line, but in this case, George’s edits were so ridiculously tendentious that I didn’t think the situation would escalate as far as it did.

George was previously making tendentious edits on the article, and the page was protected for a week.[134] During that time, he requested comment on the OR noticeboard and his proposal got shot down.[135] Nonetheless, as soon as page protection expired today, George made the change anyway and then started edit warring when I reverted his edit. [136][137][138] He did not comment as to the reason for his reverts.

I left a comment with the admin who originally looked into the issue and protected the page, alerting him to the nascent conflict and requesting that page protection be extended for another week,[139] reasoning that this would nip things in the bud. George knows this as well; he already left a comment there. He knows that this 3RR complaint is unwarranted, and it’s not the first time he’s tried to pull vindictive shenanigans like this (e.g., harassment). This sort of thing has become a chronic problem and I’m on the verge of filing a user conduct complaint with the admins as a last resort. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

RIR has been a long term edit warrior on this BLP, and was rather upset when DRN failed to agree with his POV on using a primary source in the article. Frankly, there is a whole lot of UNDUE stuff in the article, and RIR's belief that everyone who disagrees with him is "acting in tandem" for "vndictive shenanigans" when he was politely told that his edit war tactics were likely to cause him problems (I believe he called my required notice and request to self-revert "disingenuous" on his own talk page, and that I was "threatening" him [140]). Over two hundred edits on one BLP is a lot. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Collect failed to identify himself as an involved participant, and his off-topic ad hominem and suggestion that I'm "rather upset" about some prior incident was entirely predictable given that he and George Louis (both members of the NPOV-challenged WP Project Conservatism)[141] have been marching in lockstep on the VanderSloot article, and one always pops in to back up the other in virtually every dispute. Together they have been trying to game the system and whitewash the article since long before I first visited the Vandersloot page.

But background details aside, notice how Collect's mudlslinging has no bearing whatsoever on the 3RR issue (i.e. the fact that I did not violate 3RR and that George's accusation was off base) or George Louis's attempt to bypass the outcome on the noticeboard by pushing a tendentious edit the instant that page protection was lifted. Nor did he acknowledge that it was I who requested page protection to avert an edit war. The red herring about my edit count was particularly puzzling since I've contributed a substantial amount of carefully written and reliably sourced text in the article, while Collect has probably racked up 200 comments on the article's Talk page alone and still hasn't contributed more than a sentence or two to the entire article. If there were a barnstar for obstructionism...Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

"Involved"? Risible in excelcis. I have ZERO edits since the protection, and only TEN ever on that article. But let's look at the record which RIR seems intent on pushing here: RIR has 67 and I have 37 total edits on the talk page. Period. And anyone reading my posts there will note that I discuss based on the WP:BLP requirements, and not from any desire to attack or defend any person. BTW, following policies is not generally considered "obstructionism" but exaggerating about editors and making uttely risible claims about them is likely to cause problems. Cheers - but your posts here do not seem aimed at preventing any admin from acting on your edit warring. BTW, there is no doubt that this is edit war from you - 3RR is not an "entitlement" on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 03:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

It was 39 comments actually, and negligible contribution to the article itself; thanks for proving my point. But you really shouldn't have brought up the issue of edit counts in the first place. It's a needless distraction and it just adds another layer of pointless bickering to the situation. Doesn't exactly set a good example. Popping in to make an ad hominem attack just adds fuel to the fire. Again, I did not violate 3RR, and George jumped the gun without consensus, but why let pesky facts get in the way of a good witch-hunt eh? Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I gave you a very polite warning (not a template) and your reaction was to attack me. I made no ad hominem attack on you unless we are in topsy-turvy world. And that you find it somehow wrong that I do not edit war on this BLP is a very interesting concept indeed. Meanwhile, I do not engage in "witch-hunts" as you seem to think that everyone else is somehow collaborating against you -- that is a quite unwise attitude. Lastly, edit war does not require a 3RR violation -- the edit war you have engaged in is now quite long-running indeed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I stand by my previous comment. You did not offer a fair, balanced, or constructive perspective on the situation and made no comments about your buddy's disruptive behavior because, as usual, you two are marching in lockstep, as you always do (which is why I referred to your history of collusion and obstruction). You simply railed about how you thought I was upset about some past event, called me a long-term edit warrior, made a silly off-topic observation about edit counts, and completely ignored the fact that George's complaint was misleading and that I did not in fact violate 3RR as George alleged in his trumped up accusation. Your input has done nothing but exacerbate the conflict, as usual. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I count four reverts. How do you figure that there are not four? Are you saying that No. 37 above, the second one, is not a revert? But the Edit Summary says, "Reverted to revision 520771488 by John of Reading: restoring version with innocuous edits." GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I already provided an explanation. One of the reverts was a self-correction of my own revert because I had reverted to the wrong version and inadvertently missed an intermediate edit. That fact is obvious and surely it must not have escaped you; hence my statement that your 3RR complaint was trumped up and unwarranted. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Self-reverting does not count as a revert for the purposes of 3RR. That makes three reverts, and taking into consideration that RIR self-reverted one of those three, it's two reverts in 24 hours, not four. - SudoGhost 22:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Note to RIR: I am not a member of any Wikiprojects AFAICT, and I consider the claim that I am a member of one to be false. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

That little note of yours is misleading in the extreme. I don't know whether or not you are a card-carrying member of WP Project Conservatism but you are a regular contributor to the Project's talk page and to articles that fall under the project's umbrella, and you have been called out there as a biased contributor, for example in the following comment: "I'd like to point out that Collect's behavior is why there's a problem. He's a conservative editor who viciously and falsely attacks anyone who criticizes WikiProject Conservatism."[142] You are even edit warring on one such article in the midst of your bloviating about this 3RR complaint.[143] If there were a barnstar for hypocrisy...Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

GHuh? You have made enough false claims here to fill a bushel basket. I have nearly 3000 pages on my watchlist, and I am neither a memebr of a wikiproject nor a "regular contributor" to one. And when 3RR is noted on one's talk page, it is proper to self-revert as I did -- so your personal attacks are actually angering me now - you seem to be more interested in roiling waters than in collaborating on an encyclopedia. And that is actually worse than your edit war problem. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21

29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

You've completely avoided commenting on the facts at hand and you seem to be more much more concerned with smearing and evasion than with conflict resolution. It's now becoming disruptive and is making matters worse. I've done my part to provide facts and context relevant to this charge, but now this pointless bickering serves no purpose, so if you you want to continue we can do it on your Talk page where it won't be so disruptive. Let's move on now. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I have earnestly sought to avoid problems with you - hence my polite suggestion that you self-revert. Instead you seem to think that having battles is wise. I assure you such is not the case. You seem to think that attacking a person who actually wished to prevent this discussion is at fault, whilst it is more likely that the person who refuses polite suggestions is the one at fault. And I hereby disinvite you from posting on my user talk page. Again, I assure you that treating Wikipedia as a battleground is about as grieous a sin as is possible. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Good grief. Time to step off the soapbox and lighten up. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Withdrawing this complaint

Carefully examining the reverts as listed above persuades me that the second revert from the top was not an actual Revert. It was a correction of RIR's previous Revert. His Edit Summary, stating "Reverted to revision 520771488 by John of Reading: restoring version with innocuous edits" was not at all clear to me (very confusing, in fact), and I apologize to all, and particularly to Red, for not figuring out what he had done. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, pointless tag-team witch-hunt. An apology after the fact doesn't make up for the hassle or wasted resources. This is emblematic of a chronic problem. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow -- you do not seem to grasp civility much -- your accusation of "tag team" and "witch hunt" is a direct violation of Wikipedia guidelines and policies, as well as a violation of the Five Pillars. And again- edit war does not require a breaking of 3RR (subtractng one from the 4RR leaves you at the edge of the brght line, in any case. I ask you redact all your charges of "tag team" as being a violation of WP:NPA. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Please stop attacking this editor Collect. There was no reason for you to get involved here. There are many admins watching this page, and they are fully capable to process this report. It is completely ridiculous for you to explain this editor what is edit war and 3RR, while at the same time edit warring and breaching 3RR yourself. Please back off. Cheers.--В и к и T 09:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:TheTimesAreAChanging reported by User:Kabulbuddha (Result: WP:BOOMERANG)

Page: History of Cambodia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [144]

• 1st revert: [145]
• 2nd revert: [146]
• 3rd revert: [147]
• 4th revert: [148]
• 5th revert: [149]
• 6th revert: [150]
• 7th revert: [151]

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

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

Comments:
User:TheTimesAreAChanging is constantly reverting my work. Everything that I have posted in the named article had been deleted by him and some of the excuses used I feel do not hold water. It is like he owns the thread and does not want any changes to it that do not agree with his own POV.In the latest revert he names the source as the problem but forgets that it was himself that added the source in the first place 1 and here he is complaining about the source he added when I used it. 2. I have tried to act within the rules here and took a source to the reliable sources board.[154] and I said I would not use that source but was still concerned about him deleting other sourced work without good reason.I also went to the dispute noticeboard.[155].I then posted another piece of info to the article page with source and he just deleted it twice.This is getting very tiring trying to edit when someone just deletes everything I have written.He has also accused me of lying which is not very nice when all I did was contradict his opinion and provided a link to prove it.[156].I posted an edit war warning to his page but he has just deleted it.[157] Kabulbuddha (talk) 03:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

At the DRN, the RSN, and the article's talk page several editors have all sided with my edits. Kabulbuddha, who I (and others) have reason to believe is an obvious sockpuppet with a grudge, is just hoping that by some fluke he'll get me in trouble here. The source he accuses me of adding was first provided by User:ColaXtra, who also misquoted it and used other dubious sources like "Covert Action Quarterly". Kabulbuddha already rejected my proposed compromise, but his vision for the article is an enormous violation of due weight that has garnered no support from others. I have been trying to compromise: When ColaXtra deleted his own work, I restored it; I created a version of the text that was not reverted by User:Stumink, who had previously battled with ColaXtra. Kabulbuddha's complaint is groundless because I have accepted some of his text (I just added a source he recommended on the talk page, in place of the source he criticizes me for "adding") and I have not reverted his text more than twice. (After the second revert, I usually end up making concessions, after which he attempts another radical overhaul in violation of every discussion we've had.) There would be no edit conflict at all if he got consensus for his edits through discussion. Instead, he ignores policy, claiming "there is no rule to use scholarly sources" and nobody "gets to decide which sources are acceptable". If he really believes that I deserve sanctions, he must believe the same about himself; after all, he is the source of the dispute, there are no editors on his side, and he has reverted me no less frequently. This game--trying to sacrifice one of many accounts to the cause of "baiting" another editor--is apparently his modus operandi.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Note. This is for any other admins who take a look at this report. There is no doubt that both editors are edit-warring. If it weren't for all the collateral drama, I would block both. There is an open discussion at WP:ANI. There is also an open report at WP:SPI. History of Cambodia itself has been quiet for about 10 hours; otherwise, I would probably take some action, either blocking or locking the article. Although most recently, the battle has been only between TheTimesAreAChanging and Kabulbuddha, not too much further back there were reverts by User:ColaXtra (a relatively new user) and one revert only by User:93.96.170.186, who was probably ColaXtra or Kabulbuddha not logged in.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging has misrepresented my position and incorrectly quoted me adding his own assumptions which boils down to incorrect information and that is putting it nicely.I am not the one edit waring here. I have added stuff and he has deleted it,I have reverted his revert because his reasoning has been suspect,he has then reverted it again and I have stop there and taken the issue elsewhere.His claim that I said " nobody gets to decide which sources are acceptable" is untrue [158] as I stated that he does not get to decide which sources are acceptable. He also claims that I have "and he has reverted me no less frequently." which is also untrue as can be seen from the diffs provided by me.His other claim that " I have accepted some of his text" is also untrue,that was not my text,it was his and he used a source that I provided for something else he then claimed in his edit summary "Kabulbuddha assures us the sources makes the claim" which is another untruth on his part [159] His other claims that several editors have sided with him on his edits is also suspect as a few did on the Hansard edits but they all ignored his other edits of sourced material and none commented on them.He has also claimed that he had a consensus on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard to delete stuff but he did not,one editor stated that I was ok to use Hansard [160] and another editor disagreed,[161], that is not a consensus..As for his claims that I am someone else and making accusations that I did this and that under another name it is an attempt to deflect from what he has been doing. Kabulbuddha (talk) 13:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Reporter indeffed as a sock. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

User:98.116.21.163 reported by User:Vcohen (Result: First IP blocked, article semi-protected)

Page: R160 (New York City Subway car) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and F (New York City Subway service) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.116.21.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These two pages (and several others) have long history of edits and reverts, beginning on August 3. [162] [163] The 98.116.21.163 address is only one of several addresses that did these edits, but as of now it's the active one.

This is for the first article of the two:

• 1st revert: [164]
• 2nd revert: [165]
• 3rd revert: [166]
• 4th revert: [167]

Comments:

Vcohen (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Already blocked for block evasion - 3RR violation on same articles as User:71.183.185.90 Alexf^(talk) 16:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

He is here again with the same edits from a new address, 71.183.182.248. Vcohen (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC):

The article has been semi-protected by User:Wifione.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Rdmcelligott reported by User:JoshuSasori (Result: Editor apologized)

Page: The Hidden Fortress (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rdmcelligott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

1. 19:46, 2 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* Plot */")
2. 20:53, 2 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 521104916 by MarnetteD (talk)")
3. 21:16, 2 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 521109139 by MarnetteD (They positively did, at the very beginning. They were talking about being captured by their own army and being forced to bury the dead. That was a driving plot point.)")
4. 21:44, 2 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 521113677 by MarnetteD (False. Tahei explicity said they were captured by their own army. Why else would they need to cross the border to get back home?talk)")
5. 23:24, 2 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* Plot */")
6. 01:27, 3 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 521133996 by MarnetteD (talk)")
7. 01:31, 3 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 521140732 by Rdmcelligott (talk)")
8. 01:33, 3 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 521133996 by MarnetteD (That's the joke! They're so sad looking their mistaken for defeated soldiers. Please rewatch the opening scene, and they were not en route to Hosokawa, they were merely escaping.)")
9. 01:34, 3 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 521141447 by Rdmcelligott (talk)")
10. 01:36, 3 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 521133996 by MarnetteD (RE: my previous message: They're* oops.)")

• Since no actual diffs were included by the submitter, I replaced the body of this report with the output of 3rr.php. Edits 4-5 and 6-10 were consecutive, so Rdmcelligott made five reverts altogether in 24 hours. The editor has not reverted again since getting warned for 3RR at 01:36 on 3 November. EdJohnston (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Result: The reported editor has apologized and there no longer seems to be reason for a block. EdJohnston (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Syrianview and User:Johnswk reported by User:Kudzu1 (Result: Both reported editors blocked)

Page: Addounia TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Syrianview (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Johnswk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [168]
• 2nd revert: [169]
• 3rd revert: [170]
• 4th revert: [171]
• 5th revert: [172]

Comments: This should be pretty cut-and-dried. No, I haven't warned them; no, 3RR technically has not yet been breached. However, I'm reporting two users here, and the reason is not just because they persist in readding the same content despite clearly lacking consensus (two editors, myself included, have reverted them), but because they are confirmed CheckUser matches to one another and sockpuppetry is a violation of Wikipedia rules, especially when it's used by an editor to tag-team an article with multiple reverts from different accounts. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

User:76.232.253.235 reported by User:TheTimesAreAChanging (Result:76.232.252.0/22 blocked for 72 hours )

Page: Genocides in history (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.232.253.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

76.232.253.235 is waging a massive edit war at Genocides in history, as can be seen from the edit history. He was warned twice on his talk page, and previously engaged in comparable (but unreported) behavior as 76.232.253.147. There have been more than a dozen reverts on the article in the past 24 hours.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this how you resolve disputes, by trying to get me blocked? Your behavior on the the page is very unhelpful: all you did here is delete information that I worked hard to gather[173]. What explanation do you have for that? You did not contribute anything to the article by adding your own material or discussing anything substantive at the Talk Page. Instead, you're more focused on undoing any and all changes made to the article (is it because I'm new and my small edit history?)76.232.253.235 (talk) 06:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

To retaliate for my reporting him, the IP is now vandalizing articles in my contribution history. Not sure why he wants to make this personal, given that other editors have reverted him more than I, but this only demonstrates the need for immediate sanctions.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

76.232.252.0/22 blocked for 72 hours.—Kww(talk) 07:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

???TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a range block of multiple IP addresses. Kevin can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that blocks 1,024 addresses starting at 252.1.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep, you're right. However, if only 76.232.253.235 (talk) and 76.232.253.147 (talk) were to be blocked, a better rangeblock would have been 76.232.253.128/25, which only blocks 128 IPs... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a narrower/more desirable range, unless there are other IPs involved outside the range. I'm not knowledgeable enough on how to see that Kevin's range has actually been blocked and then modify it, so I'm not going to do anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not going to do anything, because Kww has not had a chance to respond; however, to see his block, you have to click here and, to modify it, here. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

My block encompasses the dynamic range that 76.232.253.235 and 76.232.253.147 are on, based on the routing data provided from a WHOIS on the addresses. I expect anyone with access to the two has access to the 1024. It's a cable company, so I doubt they are statically assigned to individual fixed locations.—Kww(talk) 14:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a Telco (AT&T) and appears to be DSL, not cable. I don't know how reliable Geolocate is, which indicates that both addresses are static. Seems more likely they are dynamic. I also don't know what the practice is here (if there is one), whether it would be better to block the narrower range and expand it if there's further disruption by addresses outside the narrow range, or to block the wider range under the assumption you made. I suppose it's discretionary. It's not a long block, so ... --Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Admins who want to view or modify the rangeblock can also use the handy rangelinks template, which displays as 76.232.252.0/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). The recent contributions from the range can be viewed with rangecontribs. I don't see anybody but this one editor coming from that range in the last few days, so IMHO it is not urgent to narrow the block. EdJohnston (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It's rare that any large company will allocate with a finer resolution than a /24. When the range comes back as /20 or smaller, I tend to just go with the range. If it's a /19 or bigger, I try a smaller range first in the hopes that there'a an allocation boundary that isn't visible from outside the network.—Kww(talk) 15:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, very helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Based on his edits related to Mengistu [174] and geographic location, this IP is certainly a sock of User:Jacob Peters. My very best wishes (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

To be sure we don't lose this information I've filed a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jacob Peters. If Jacob continues to edit from the /22 range after the block expires a longer rangeblock should be considered. Historically JP has employed a large number of IPs so any further edits may have to be recognized on behavior. Recently he has used IPs from the San Diego area. Jacob Peters is in the WP:List of banned users. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Kennvido reported by Viriditas (talk) (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Hurricane Sandy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 10:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 01:22, 2 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* Connection to global warming */ this is the 3rd time you have put this here...this is political and opinion and does not belong here, please go to the global warming article and discuss Sandy there :}")
2. 12:41, 2 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* Influence of global warming */ Global warming in not fact. Please discuss on the Global Warming page")
3. 22:32, 2 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* Meteorological history */ Please stop with the GW stuff here, it is unproven, nothing concrete. Discuss it of the GW page please, thank you")
4. 00:17, 3 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* Impact */ please leave this way so the references don't eclipse the stat board unless you can do it another way :)")
5. 00:21, 3 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* Meteorological history */ This has got to stop!!! There is NO scientific proof that Sandy had anything to do with GW. If is all conjecture at this point in time.")
6. 01:05, 3 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* Meteorological history */ nothing is settled")
7. 01:37, 3 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* Meteorological history */ other info")
8. 08:28, 3 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* Meteorological history */ 2011 is as important as 2012 regarding GW. And this is just another view no more no less please leave until the editor decides on the total GW situation in Talk, Thank you.")
9. 09:33, 4 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* Political Impact */ What Romney said in 2011 has nothing to do with a this 2012 event")
10. 09:39, 4 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* Political Impact */ What Romney said in 2011 has nothing to do with a this 2012 event")
11. 10:09, 4 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* Mitt Romney's 2011 FEMA Comments */ Please bring this to discussion, it's about FEMA and NOT THE HURRICANE")

• Diff of warning: here

Comments:

• 3RR is not an entitlement to revert three times a day. User has engaged in constant edit warring, battleground behavior, and gaming the system. Viriditas (talk) 10:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. The edit-warring is clear. Indeed, there is a breach of 3RR on November 2-3. However, more important is the POV-pushing insistence, which is apparent in the continuous reversions and the edit summaries. I tried to advise Ken in this discussion about the policy issues involved in edit-warring, but he simply refused to grasp (or was unable to) the principles involved in collaborative editing. The editing on the article is difficult enough without this kind of disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Bidgee reported by User:208.54.4.224 (Result: 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [175]

• 1st revert: [176]
• 2nd revert: [177]
• 3rd revert: [178]
• 4th revert: [179]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [180]

Note: I warned Bidgee in an edit summary. I know that this isn't ideal, but Bidgee's talk page is protected so I can't edit it.

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

Note: This isn't a diff, but a link to the current version of the talk page, since most of what's on there is me trying to resolve the dispute and being ignored.

Comments:

I also want to point out that in addition to refusing to discuss the issue, Bidgee used twinkle to drop a vandalism template on my talk page here without discussing anything at all. 208.54.4.224 (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

User:174.84.195.0 reported by User:Tarage (Result: Semi)

Page: List of Eureka Seven episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 174.84.195.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=List_of_Eureka_Seven_episodes&diff=516034599&oldid=511328904
• 2nd revert: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=List_of_Eureka_Seven_episodes&diff=520365293&oldid=520043885
• 3rd revert: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=List_of_Eureka_Seven_episodes&diff=520763475&oldid=520678761
• 4th revert: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=List_of_Eureka_Seven_episodes&diff=520919244&oldid=520764324
• 5th revert: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=List_of_Eureka_Seven_episodes&diff=521347349&oldid=520923067

I left a warning on his talk page stating that if he continues to remove the above section without giving a reason, I would report him. Since giving that warning he has done it three more times. These have been undone by editor User:Sjones23 and myself.

Comments:The issue in question is the inclusion of the 51st episode of the series Eureka Seven on the episode page. The editor has made no attempt to explain the removal of information, nor has any attempt to respond to questions about the edit been made. The editor appears to be an IP not interested in communicating or contributing in a collaborative manner.

--Tarage (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Result: Semiprotected two months. There might be some logic to the IP's position, but we'll never know what it is since he doesn't use the talk page or even leave edit summaries. This is a case of long-term warring by the IP since the reverts were not within 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

User:14.99.166.211, User:27.124.16.197, and User:Imtitanium reported by User:Psychonaut (Result: Protected)

Page: Bigg Boss 6 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 14.99.166.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 27.124.16.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Imtitanium (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Reverts:

• 29 October 2012 at 14:37: User:14.99.166.211 adds the text; no edit summary
• 29 October 2012 at 16:27: User:Imtitanium removes the text; no edit summary
• 31 October 2012 at 13:42: User:27.124.16.197 adds the text; no edit summary
• 31 October 2012 at 18:11: User:Imtitanium removes the text; edit summary: "Irrelevant"
• 2 November 2012 at 08:32: User:27.124.16.197 adds the text; no edit summary
• 2 November 2012 at 09:53: User:Imtitanium removes the text; no edit summary
• 4 November 2012 at 11:28: User:27.124.16.197 adds the text; no edit summary
• 4 November 2012 at 12:15: User:Imtitanium removes the text; no edit summary
• 4 November 2012 at 12:50: User:27.124.16.197 adds the text; no edit summary
• 4 November 2012 at 14:28: User:Imtitanium removes the text; edit summary: "Fake. unconstructive information"
• 5 November 2012 at 08:19: User:27.124.16.197 adds the text; no edit summary
• 5 November 2012 at 08:52: User:Imtitanium removes the text; edit summary: "Unconstructive fake information"
• 5 November 2012 at 10:38: User:27.124.16.197 adds the text; no edit summary

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning for 27.124.16.197; warning for Imtitanium

Comments: The two users (one of which is has used two anonymous IP accounts) have been engaged in a revert war for several days. The IP accounts have been attempting to add text to the article, always without explanation, and User:Imtitanium immediately removes it, also usually without explanation. On 2 November I warned both users about edit warring, and asked them to discuss the matter on the talk page. Neither has done so. After the warning, User:Imtitanium claimed on his user talk page that the information the IP accounts are trying to add is fake. (Previously, he had only claimed that it was "irrelevant".) I told him that if the edits constitute vandalism, he needs to report it as such; however, he hasn't done so, and has continued to revert without attempting to engage the user or assuming good faith (something he has often neglected in past interactions with other users, and has been warned about multiple times: [182] [183] [184]).

Note that I don't know enough about the plot and media coverage of this television show to know whether or not the information the IP user is trying to insert really is false; I have just one user's word against another's. Perhaps the IP user is inserting correct (albeit unsourced) information, or perhaps IP account is inserting incorrect or irrelevant information in good faith, or perhaps they really are a vandal deliberately inserting false information. The point is that both editors are mindlessly reverting each other instead of trying to determine each other's motivations and publically establish the accuracy or usefulness of the content in dispute. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I've already reported it. Today morning. [185] The account is publicizing some unknown imaginary housewife named Madhu. Look at this : Out of over 1,00,000 people who applied online as a commoner,four people were selected,this included Anjali Patil,a radio jockey from Dehli,Jay Mishra a teacher from Mumbai,Madhu Lunia a housewife and a mother of three from Howrah,West Bengal and Kashif Qureshi,a martial artist from Hydreabad.After repeated calls from the authorities of the house Madhu did not attended the premier of the show.As a result,Kashif entered the show as a commoner.Kashif’s stay in the house was short and he got evicted from the show in the 2nd week itself.On public demand,a commoner will enter the house again and this time it will be Madhu Lunia on the basis of the votes that were casted between the current housemates of the house a week before.Madhu got seven votes,Anjali and Jay both got 2 votes.Sapna,Sana,Sampat,Navjot,Aseem,Denlaaz & Aska voted for Madhu to be a part of the game show.When asked the reason for the vote Sidhu said,”I want a housewife to enter the show,who can manage the house most efficiently”.The authorities will contact Madhu soon and she is expected to enter the house on 01/12/2012. Madhu must submit her three different photographs along with her permanent residence address at the official fan page of Bigg Boss by 9pm,on 05/11/2012 if she wishes to enter the house.The authorities of the house will visit her residence on 16/11/2012.The authorities have just confirmed that Madhu will not be entering the Bigg Boss’s house with her relative (as it was being said previously),though the housewife selected (Madhu) will enter the house with another popular housewife of silver screen Sakshi Tanwar on 01/12/2012.Madhu remained unavailable for comment. This is all fake information. I'm sure the account is itself some Madhu's. Arghh. This is so stupid. You are acting purposely stupid. Neglecting every bit of obviousness this case has to offer. I don't know why i'm even talking to you on this matter. I'll let this page rot on its own. Goodbye -- I'm Titanium  ^chat 12:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: Due to the ongoing case here, I have declined the report at AIV. Blocks can be handed out by the closing admin here if deemed appropriate. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Imtitanium's WP:AIV report was filed during the delay between my writing and posting this report. However, my concerns about edit warring and not assuming good faith remain. Suspected vandalism should first be reported to the account making the edits and not directly to WP:AIV. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I also note that the edit warring has continued even after both users were informed about this report. Imtitanium has reverted again, claiming in the edit summary that the matter is "Too obvious to be discussed." —Psychonaut (talk) 12:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:3RRNO might apply in mitigation. If unsourced details of named individuals are being removed WP:3RR may not apply. Leaky Caldron 13:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

If the material was really being removed on WP:BLP grounds, it would have been helpful if this were reflected in the edit summaries, and the user who inserted the text informed of our policies and given an opportunity to provide reliable sources. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Listen I am not paid to edit on wikipedia. I do this cause i like to. If you are going to make the the whole page my responsibility i cant help but take actions on my own. Tell me who else regularly contributes to the page? Do you think I have absolutely nothing else to do? I have a proper life. I come to wikipedia to word what I see on TV, in turn, improving my skills to write. I have no compassion for the Wiki foundation. Do you think I would go warning these stupids IPs asking them to stop adding non-sense? Seriously? I do not have worthless time to invest in such non-profiting situations, I'm sorry. It's clearly unsourced and seems to be written by some guy/girl who wants to advertise some Madhu, Jay, Anjali. LIKE WTF??? This is so f*c*ed up, i swear.-- I'm Titanium  ^chat 13:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what we're asking you to do. Give users the benefit of the doubt; don't assume that they are deliberately trying to disrupt Wikipedia. We have warning templates available for this purpose, which save you the trouble of writing a custom warning. See for example {{uw-vandal1}}, {{uw-unsourced1}}, {{uw-error1}}, and {{uw-biog1}}, some of which may have been appropriate in this case. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Get out of my face. I refused to talk to you. Good day. -- I'm Titanium  ^chat 14:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected. I've semi-protected the page for a week. The material being added by the different IP addresses is so garbagy and so unencyclopedic (in addition to being unsourced) that it practically jumps all over you, and I know absolutely nothing about the show. @I'm Titanium, two things: first, next time report the problem to a noticeboard rather than edit-war over it. Second, don't get so riled up about it. It's not worth it, and it is no excuse for treating other editors disrespectfully (I'm referring to Psychonaut).Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Cwmacdougall reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Protected)

Page: White Terror (Russia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cwmacdougall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [186]

• 1st revert: [187]
• 2nd revert: [188]
• 3rd revert: [189]
• 4th revert: [190]
• 5th revert: [191]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [192]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [193]

I have not used that talk page as the only edits i have done was revert mass removal of content. I logged in today and saw the above edit warring so am reporting it. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

An editor refuses the most modest improvements to a crude biased piece of poorly sourced propaganda. I tried appealing to the NPOV page and to the Russia Group, with little effect. I have now filed a Dispute Resolution. cwmacdougall 23.09, 5 November 2012

• Page protected by another admin. Jayron32 05:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

User:DemirBajraktarevic reported by User:Wüstenfuchs (Result: Both blocked)

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

• 1st revert: [194]
• 2nd revert: [195]
• 3rd revert: [196]
• 4th revert: [197]

I said to the user that he shouldn't remove sourced infos, but still he continues to do so. Moreover, he repaces it by his own claim. --Wüstenfuchs 03:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

P. S.

The edit-war warrning was made by me as well ([198]). --Wüstenfuchs 03:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

I am the said user. Osman Kulenović is the article. Osman Kulenović was born in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the 1880s into a Bosnian Muslim family. He moved to Croatia later in life and was involved in politics there. The point is: he was Bosnian - NOT Croatian. Wüstenfuchs has multiple times stated that Kulenovic was a Croat. RIDICULOUS AND NOT TRUE. --DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 03:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

If a person feels in certain way then there's no need for a dicussion. Kulenović, both he and his brother, were known for their Croatian nationalist attitudes. You made a conclusion that he is a Bosniak just because Kulenović was a Muslim by his religion. That is not valid argument. Needless to say, both he and his brother considered Bosnian Muslims to be Croats. Besides, the information is sourced as well and you are replacing it with your own oppinion. --Wüstenfuchs 03:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked. Wüstenfuchs has a history of edit warring, and was blocked recently as 1 month ago, so he received a longer block of one week (his last block was for 3 days). DemirBajraktarevic has never been blocked before, so I gave him a 24 hour block. --Jayron32 05:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Double sharp and User:Eka-bismuth reported by User:I Jethrobot (Result: Double sharp and Eka-bismuth warned)

Page: Ununpentium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Double sharp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Eka-bismuth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [199]

Double sharp (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: [200]
• 2nd revert: [201]
• 3rd revert: [202]
• 4th revert: [203]
• 5th revert: [204]

Eka-bismuth (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: [205]
• 2nd revert: [206]
• 3rd revert: [207]
• 4th revert: [208]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [209], [210]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• [211]
• [212] - No discussion on article talk page, but editors are attempting to resolve issue on the WikiProject Elements talk page as the issue would be relevant to all articles on elements on the periodic table.

Comments:

• Editors were engaged in a content dispute over the addition of cultural information about Ununpentium. Eka-bismuth has repeatedly attempted to add this information, and Double sharp has repeatedly removed it. The current state of the article retains some of the original additions from Eka-bismuth from Double sharp's recent edit summary on the article: keep one paragraph, move rest to. This discussion seems to be constructive, and edit warring has since appeared to end, but 3RR was nonetheless violated. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I apologize for this violation and have stopped the edit warring and started discussing instead. I'll make sure I refrain from doing this again in future. Double sharp (talk) 02:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
    • In spite of his conciliatory comment just above, it looks like Double sharp has continued the war with his edits on 5 November. I suggested that he agree to take a break from this topic to avoid a block for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• Result: The two reported editors are warned not to continue the war. EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• Note - Eka-bismuth has continued the same sort of thing (today) at Element 115 in popular culture. A similar suggestion on his talk page might also be appropriate. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 00:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Eka-bismuth has not continued to revert since I left a more detailed note on his talk page. The AfD which is now in progress may help to settle the matter. It is easy to see that serious-minded chemists might take umbrage at a large fraction of a technical article being taken over by popular culture. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Faulknerck2‎ reported by User:Zad68 (Result: Semi-protection and advisement)

Pages:

• Template:Violence against men (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Genital modification and mutilation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Male Genital Mutilation (MGM) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

User being reported: Faulknerck2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Note: This is an attempt by Faulknerck2 to edit-war in unsourced/poorly sourced material or duplicate material across three articles. His edits were reverted by myself, Jayjg, RHaworth and 71.61.95.21 (a long-time productive IP editor) with numerous invitations to discuss.

Previous version reverted to: 03:59, 31 October 2012 (edit summary: "/* Male circumcision */")

1. 03:58, 31 October 2012 -- Added [[Genital_modification_and_mutilation|Male Genital Mutilation]] to Template:Violence against men
2. 20:23, 31 October 2012 (edit summary: "why not? MGM is a brutal thing that can do to a man ,and it's same as FGM. http://www.mgmbill.org/")
3. 06:21, 3 November 2012 (edit summary: "I made enough evidence why MGM should be in this list in the talk section so please refer them rather than removing this because you don't agree with me.")
4. 08:53, 3 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 521176362 by 71.61.95.21 (talk)")
5. 09:17, 4 November 2012 (edit summary: "it's not a domestic violence, Genital Mutilation is a different category. http://www.bestgore.com/tag/male-genital-mutilation/")
6. At this point, Faulknerck2 created a WP:POVFORK of Genital modification and mutilation named Male Genital Mutilation (MGM) with basically the same content. I CSD'd it as an A10-dup of existing content. Faulknerck2 briefly edit-warred trying to delete the CSD tag, and then RHaworth speedy-deleted the page.
7. 23:09, 4 November 2012 (edit summary: "obviously related to the topic. MGM is indeed a violence against men and boys - see the talk section")
8. 00:55, 5 November 2012 (edit summary: "")
9. 01:03, 5 November 2012 (edit summary: "Show me any duplication ? no place has mentioned about "other than circumcision make damage to the penis, scrotum, testes, glans are also considered as Male Genital Mutilation."")
10. 01:08, 5 November 2012 (edit summary: "He/she vandalized my details.")
11. 02:45, 5 November 2012 (edit summary: "I have a proper source for MGM now so don't remove this.")
12. 04:06, 5 November 2012 (edit summary: "stop messing up with my edits. source is reliable you can check it out by yourself. and you broke the 3 Edit Rule in here.") -- Note: I did not break the 3RR there.
13. 03:52, 6 November 2012 (edit summary: "source has been provided and they are also reliable so why remove them? so stop vandalizing articles.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Additional personal warnings I provided:

• diff -- Warning and asked Faulknerck2 to work with fellow editors on talk to gain consensus
• diff -- Another edit-warring warning with an explanation of the WP:BRD process and note that if Faulknerck2 continues, I will open edit-warring report
• diff -- Still assuming good faith and giving Faulknerck2 one more try with an invite to join discussion section I opened at article Talk page

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

• User Talk:Faulknerck2
• Talk:Genital_modification_and_mutilation#Discussion_of_proposed_new_content_.22Four_Types_of_Genital_Mutilations.22
• Template_talk:Violence_against_men

Responses from Faulknerck2, largely WP:IDHT and personal attacks. My only reponses to his edits have been that they are unsourced/poorly sourced, or duplicate existing content.

• 20:36, 31 October 2012 -- In this message, Faulknerck2 says that my revert "implies you support to that barbarism without any hesitation"; I removed the message from my User Talk page per WP:NPA
• 06:13, 1 November 2012 "why don't you cut off your own penis?" -- To Jayjg
• 06:28, 3 November 2012 -- WP:CANVASS problem at User Talk:Lore Spinner
• 02:05, 5 November 2012 "I wish someone will cut off your genital and remind you how it affects to your mentality" -- I did not reply.
• 02:51, 5 November 2012 "Harassment warning", "http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks", "stop interfering with my editing unless I have to report you." -- Unwillingness to address the policy issues raised and collaborate. I had made no personal attack.
• 04:09, 5 November 2012 "YOu have no right to remove whatever anything in wikipedia because you don't agree with that." -- Seems to be an WP:IDHT problem, I had provided policy-based reasons for all of my reverts.
• 04:58, 5 November 2012 -- Faulknerck2 created a malformed WP:AIV report against me. The report was removed by the bot without action.

His editing is quite disruptive. I do not think an editor who refers to policy pages as "gibberish" will be a productive editor for Wikipedia. In my opinion, we could be in WP:COMPETENCE territory here. Zad68 16:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

Refer this page. this man has been stalking me, disturbing me ever since I added about MGM into the Wikipedia Faulk (talk) 05:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC) he started the edit war because what I have edited didn't fit into his ideology. he believes there is NO such term called MGM and it's solely a made up story by even though I made a lot of proofs about that. MGM is a threat and it's a brutal crime and if you don't know . babies have died because of MGM.and circumcision is one of things belong to MGM and there could be a lot of types (I made them in the http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Genital_modification_and_mutilation in here but WIKIPEDIA DOESN"T SAY ANYTHING about that. seriously HOW COME PEOPLE IN THIS SITE FORGET ABOUT MGM?? ban me if you want but don't forget people suffer in this world because of MGM. I have seen them and I have heard that a lot) https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/548698_278766902205608_576479498_n.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faulknerck2 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 5 November 2012

• Note. User:EdJohnston left a note on Faulknerck2's talk page at 17:14, November 6, asking the editor to agree to refrain from editing MGM articles and templates for one week. Faulknerck2 has not edited anything since 5:17, November 5. Although Ed left open the possibility of a block despite his advisement, I would prefer to wait to see if the editor will agree to the condition. A third admin may take a different view.

Added. In the Genital modification and mutilation article history, I discovered that an IP reverted along similar lines to Faulknerck2 after Faulknerck2 stopped editing. This was still before Ed's advisement, but I find it disturbing. I have put the template and the article on my watchlist. I have also reverted the last change by Faulknerck2 to the template.

Added. There was another reversion by an IP from the same location (Sri Lanka). I've reverted it and semi-protected the page. My suspicion is the IP is Faulknerck2, but although I see some contributions to articles that are related or possibly related to Sri Lanka by Faulknerck2 (e.g., Islam in Sri Lanka and Prophets in Islam), I'm hesitant to conclude the IPs are Faulknerck2. If another admin feels there is sufficient evidence of sock puppetry, then on that point alone Faulknerck2 should be blocked. I've semi-protected the article to guard against further disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Semiprotection looks like a reasonable step. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Note. Since my last update, I've also semi-protected the template (the same individual, different IP address, reverted the template). Unless another admin wishes to take action against Faulknerck2 based on possible sock puppetry (I'm not), I'm closing this report based on the remedial actions already taken.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

User:70.253.75.84 reported by User:Jenova20 (Result: 1 week)

This editor appears to be waging a personal edit war against me across two articles just to revert war. I've started discussions with him but he's done it again since then and to another article aswell (just to get at me i suspect) and is at 2 or 3 reverts on the one article. It's not majorly important stuff but it's incredibly annoying and he's already been warned by me and someone else on his talk page and he's still doing it. Articles in question are Template:LGBT rights table Africa and LGBT rights in Texas. I've since noticed also that he/she's currently engaged in 10+ edit wars across difference articles with other editors...I also realize i've used rollback on the user on one of my examples when i should have restored the previous version, apologies, i will correct that now. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Largoplazo#LGBT rights in Africa and User:Largoplazo/Note on LGBT rights in African countries for further context. This IP-hopping editor has been active for several months on various LGBT rights in various "LGBT rights in X" articles, where X is usually an African country. The editor adds a lot of well-sourced information, much of which nonetheless constitutes synthesis of legal arguments and interpretations strongly favouring a pro-LGBT POV (e.g., "Country A's constitution says X, Y, and Z; taken together one must therefore infer that homosexuality enjoys constitutional protection."), and undue weight to same. For the last week User:Largoplazo and I have been attempting to engage this user without success. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I see. Is he under any obligation to respond to requests to explain his actions so we can avoid arguments and edit wars? Thanks for the reply ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is a (possibly incomplete) list of IP addresses the user has used:

• 70.253.64.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.253.65.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.253.67.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.253.69.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.253.70.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.253.70.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.253.70.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.253.71.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.253.71.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.253.73.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.253.74.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.253.74.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.253.75.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.253.76.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.253.77.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.253.79.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.253.79.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.253.80.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.253.81.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.253.84.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.253.85.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.253.86.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.253.88.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.253.91.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.253.92.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.253.94.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.253.94.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.253.95.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 75.34.101.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 75.34.102.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

—Psychonaut (talk) 12:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that he/she can be said to be under any obligation to respond, but I think there will be a difference between the way to proceed with a person who willingly engages in discussion and a person who ignores all attempts to discuss. I'm the one who has twice deleted boilerplate text from 13 "LGBT rights in X" articles. The second time through, I left in the edit summaries a link to the explanatory article Psychonaut mentioned above, User:Largoplazo/Note on LGBT rights in African countries. Because this person refuses to engage—and assuming others agree with my rationale for the deletions—I wondered whether the next step is to go right to semi-protection, since being an IP user, who will never see "You have new messages", is helping him/her evade discussion. With semiprotection, he/she could choose either to discuss, or to register, in which case he/she would then have a talk page. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

But, we can't just protect 10+ articles and in the process prevent others from editing because he won't discuss his WP:Synthesis? Any other solutions to this? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It's just semi-protection which is being proposed, which prevents editing only by those using anonymous IPs, or very new accounts (less than a few days old). Considering some of the alternative remedies which could be employed if he does not stop the disruption and start discussing (for example, a block of his entire IP range), I don't think short-term semiprotection is too great an imposition. (Also, it's not just his synthesis which needs to be discussed; it's also his POV-pushing, adding information of very general scope to very specific articles, and "ownership" of the articles. It's not just the three of us he's reverted; if you examine the page histories you'll find that many other editors have had their edits immediately undone by him.) —Psychonaut (talk) 12:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

But, he's editing a lot of articles...And LGBT rights in example country is a range of about 200 articles he could start warring on. I support your proposal for protection Psychonaut but there's no way we can prevent his POV-pushing this way as he'll move along to other LGBT rights in example country articles. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The above looks to be small enough of a range to allow for a technical range block: what does the rest of editing look like on that range? I'm not a real expert in giving range blocks, but one could work well here. --Jayron32 13:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm in. I'll agree to any proposal now. I've just been warned i'm edit warring by the same user on my talk page in retaliation - despite him making more reverts than me and me opening discussions with him over the warring.

He's also still warring on other LGBT rights in example country articles. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Since the latest IP is edit warring as we speak, and collateral damage looks to be minimal, I've blocked 70.253.0.0/16 for a week. I'm hoping this person will create an account because there might be some usable content here, but the 12 article edit war with dynamic IPs has gotten a bit disruptive now. – Steel 15:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

He's continuing from 75.34.101.112 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which is outside your range block. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The editor started posting to User:Largoplazo/Note on LGBT rights in African countries and User talk:Jenova20, though so far he doesn't seem willing to entertain the possibility that his edits may violate consensus and policy. Hopefully he will create an account and continue the discussion. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

There is much more activity on this one, but mostly minor edits and some vandalism, so I've blocked it (/16) too for the same length of time. If it turns out next week that a longer term solution is required for these pages then I'm happy to semi-protect the lot. – Steel 16:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

He doesn't accept that he's at fault and personally attacked me on my user page. He's quoting a policy to me while violating about 4 himself but doesn't accept the criticism. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 16:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

A new account, User:AfricaTanz, has been created, and has started editing LGBT rights in Kenya in a manner consistent with the IP user's edits. I have left a message on their talk page asking if they're the IP user and inviting them to discuss their contributions at User:Largoplazo/Note on LGBT rights in African countries. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Patentman72 reported by User:Gnome de plume (Result: 24 hours)

Page: AstroTurf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Patentman72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [213]

• 1st revert: [214]
• 2nd revert: [215]
• 3rd revert: [216]
• 4th revert: [217]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [218]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I attempted to engage the user on his talk page here, but his response was simply another revert. Gnome de plume (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• The editor may have a conflict of interest. Their edits reword things so that the term "AstroTurf" is always used as an adjective rather than as a noun, similar to how a trademark holder (or their IP lawyer) would insist their trademark be used. The edits even go so far as to label the nominal use as "incorrect". The first edit summary also reads, "Correction of improper use of ASTROTURF trademark." It needs to be made clear to the editor that Wikipedia, as a third party, is not beholden to any legal requirements imposed on the trademark holder to protect their mark from dilution. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Favonian (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Darkstar1st reported by User:RolandR (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Nazism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Darkstar1st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [219]

• 1st revert: [220]
• 2nd revert: [221]
• 3rd revert: [222]
• 4th revert: [223]
• 5th revert: [224]
• 6th revert: [225]
• 7th revert: [226]
• 8th revert: [227]
• 9th revert: [228]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [229]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [230], [231]

Comments:

Editor has been blocked several times for edit-warring, but persists in adding poorly substantiated claims against consensus. RolandR (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Wifione ^Message 01:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Patavium reported by User:Mai-Sachme (Result: Page protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [232]

Everthing started with the actions of User:Felisopus, who started an edit war, trying to add completely unsourced information to an article: [233] and following edits. After being reverted, invited to the talk page and asked there for sources, he went to the Italian wikipedia and asked User:Theirrulez (here on en.wikipedia a subject to extended 1RR restriction on WP:ARBMAC-related topics) for help. And so he did. Now we come to User:Patavium, who slightely changed the unsourced claims and reinserted them, ignoring the discussion at the talk page:

• 1st revert: [234]

He was reverted and asked for sources. One hour later, after apparently reading two entire books (an impressive accomplishment), he reverted again, this time citing sources.

• 2nd revert: [235]

Nevertheless, the added information was still partly unsourced, partly unrelated to the topic of the article and partly ignoring Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.), for example citing a book about World War I for a proceses in the Holy Roman Empire...

• 3rd revert: [236]

• 4th revert: [237] (The edit summary line is missleading: he didn't bring more sources, he just reverted.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [238]

I repeatedly tried to convince him to discuss the topic at the talk page 'before editing again: Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [239], [240], [241]. Since he didn't change his attitude, I have to report him here. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• I added clear sources in the text. Unfortunately Mai-Sachme continued to revert ignoring the sources.
• There were three users, Felisopus, Theirrules and me agreeing on the edits.
• Discussion with Mai-Sachme is quite difficult:
  • Here he wants a source for "the development of an own Ladin consciousness in the 19th century".
  • Previosly he said: It's completely uncontested that Ladins have developed a national ethnic identity in the 19th century.
• Book WWI: refers to Austrian Empire, not to HRR.--Patavium (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Patavium is edit warring on the page since October 9th [242] when he reverted a series of about 20 single corrections (most mine, all using the edit summary) putting a misleading claim in the edit summary, removing sources and giving undue weight to doubtful ladin communes.--Sajoch (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Well Patavium, if I were you, I wouldn't highlight that an edit warrior, who didn't have any kind of sources, and a user with an 1RR restriction on WP:ARBMAC-related topics were your forerunners. The main problem here is that both User:Sajoch and me asked you to discuss the edits before reverting. You didn't feel the need to do that.

I don't know, what you are trying to prove with those diff-links. I asked you for a source that the development of a Ladin ethnic identity in the 19th century (which is completely undisputed) stopped the process of Germanization as you reverted (without giving any kind of source) repeatedly in the article.

The book we are talking about is called Una trincea chiamata Dolomiti: 1915-1917. It could be a good source for Italian Campaign (World War I), you used it as a source for a process which you claim to have started several centuries ago. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

There are clear figures from the census. Manipulating them makes no sense.

The books talks about major efforts of Germanization during the war. As the article says now In the vast Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation and then after 1804 the Austrian empire, the Ladins underwent a process of Germanization. Actually Austrian in not fully correct, as it became Austria-Hungary in 1867. But as a matter of fact, the Austrian authorities incremented their assimilation efforts during war. So a book about WWI is a very reliable source.

My previous editor maybe did not post the sources, but he had a clear and correct idea - as most of his edits were common knowledge. I added some info, sources and changed the style.

I therefore doubt that we need a previous discussion on common knowledge - at least in an Italian context, as the one which regards the Ladin area (or most of it). Unless the aim is preventive censorship, concealing Germanization and leaving only the message of Italianization. That would be quite a distorted view of Ladin history.

On the contrary the system of total revert you use is not helpful, because vital information gets lost.

Moreover, my view of events is slightly different. All reverts were performed by Mai-Sachme. I started with an edit, which was then reverted several times by Mai-Sachme, [243] even if I tried to integrate his objections. The rest of the sequence can be seen here [244]. Mai-Sachme is the one who removes the contents. Of course this would fall under another category than edit-war.--Patavium (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Patavium, we're not talking here about article-related topics, that's what articles' talk pages are made for. We are talking here about the fact that you reinserted controversial edits, completely ignoring the discussion, and even after being invited to take part in the discussion, continued to revert. You must realize that this kind of behaviour is not going to work out. Well, finally (but only after opening this case here) you seem to have stopped the edit warring. That's great, I'm sure we're going to find a consensual solution. But on the other hand I'd like to make sure that you don't start again with unilateral changes without searching for a consensus at the talk page. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 00:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

How could be considered an edit-war a simply attempt by an user to improve an article which is clearly affected by lack of neutrality? It sounds a little self-contradictory.. even considering that Mai-Sachme has been compelled to quit his contribution on it.wiki after was underlined his evident non-neutral approach, and Sajoch was blocked for a year (as he currently is) for pov-pushing and edit-war.

I suggest to avoid every attempt to accuse other users just in order to discredit them or to intimidate them, I really hope sourced edit will be no more reverted by Mai-Sachme, and any contents or reliable sources will be no more removed aritrarily or just claiming for "no consensus". --Theirrulez (talk) 05:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: I was blocked "together" with Patavium for edit-warring, as i tried to correct some false statements. Admins on it.wiki do not care about who's wrong or right, but prefer to block whoever is involved in an edit-war.--Sajoch (talk) 11:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

This is simply not true, Sajoch. You are currenltly blocked on it.wiki for POV-pushing and editwarring on ladin and tyrol-related articles, as a single-purpose user, for a total block duration of 1 year. Patavium, on the contrary, has just been blocked for short period because he was involved in edit-war trying to avoid tour disruptive edits. I hope there's no need to link your block log and Italian community decisions about you. Theirrulez (talk) 15:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Theirrulez: You should stay on topic! This is not the place to discuss misjudgements on it.wiki, where I wasn't even allowed to defend myself. Many valid contributors quit it.wiki for exactly those reasons: it's impossible to correct even blatant errors, while admins prefer to get involved with politics.--Sajoch (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Sajoch, there is no need to misrepresent reality. You were blocked for damaging Wikipedia and for a high degree of incompatibility. On the contrary, you tried to pull users into political discussions rather than sticking to plain facts. The same thing you are trying to do here, making edit wars against plain vanilla statistic data you do not like - whyever - and inventing figures about how you would like things to be, whyever--Patavium (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Me and politics? :-) Again you're wrong and totally off topic: don't widen this discussion to distract from your problem!--Sajoch (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You continue insisting with - off topic - Italian Wikipedia where you started up political discussions? As to me here, I have no problem but with the title of this notification. Actually it should be User:Sajoch and User:Mai-Sachme reported by User:Patavium, User:Felisopus and User:Theirrules. The problem is that you make exhausting edit-wars in order to avoid correction of blatant mistakes and POV inventions.--Patavium (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, if we didn't have sufficient prove that something's going wrong here, now we do. Patavium's desperately trying to gather some supporters. Theirrulez' interventions here follewed this edit on it.wikipedia, where Patavium asked him for help at this page, because I am supposed to have "eliminated" (yes, these are his words...) other users before him. By the way, Theirrulez seems to be some kind of emergency reserve. As I showed above, he also took part in the edit war, ignoring the discussion and simply reverting, after being asked to do so on it.wikipedia... Wikipedia:Meat puppetry at its highest level.

Theirrulez, for you, being a user with an impresssive history of Italo-Balcanic edit warring and subject to extended 1RR restriction on WP:ARBMAC-related topics, it's an interesting move to appear here. Do you think your voice will be heard as a neutral comment? And do you think that false claims will help your and Patavium's case? Mai-Sachme has been compelled to quit his contribution on it.wiki after was underlined his evident non-neutral approach... What? I was compelled? By whom? I left the Italian wikipedia voluntarily after realizing that academic standards are not valued at all there. I left with a light heart and an empty blog log. Do we really need to have a look here at yours and Patavium's instead? And what should we think now, seeing that you're hastily clearing the last logged ARBMAC-warning from 27 april?

Anyway, Patavium stopped edit warring now, but I'd really like to see an administrator constantly monitoring the situation. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 05:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLANKING#Removal_of_comments.2C_notices.2C_and_warnings. On it.wiki users aren't allowed to delete/hide anything, and would be blocked for such behaviour. How does en.wiki handle this?--Sajoch (talk) 11:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I have been involved in this discussion (without any warning until this morning, when I noticed to him) by the user Mai-Sachme, then I would reply. This will be my only speech, because this report is baseless. First, i did not start any edit-war (it's quite funny: for him I was doing an edit-war alone, because he doesn't mention any other user) because all my edits in three "ladin-related" articles were wiped out by a single user, Sajoch. This user on it.wiki has been blocked many times (and now for a year) for the same reason: edit-wars on everything related to Ladins. This has also affected the user Patavium, and this is not an insignificant detail. Certainly it's more relevant than an inexistent Meat puppetry: I wrote in a user talk page and only after the user Mai-Sachme asked to investigate the sources of it.wiki and he wrote that I needed help to express my opinion in English (sic) and that's exactly what I did, asking a more experienced and skilled user of it.wiki, about this topic. In conclusion, I reiterate that this report is baseless and can be closed. --Felisopus (talk) 09:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

a) You haven't be warned by me, because you stopped the edit warring and hence are not the subject of this report here.

b) I didn't ask you to bring over some friends of yours or to investigate the sources of it.wiki. It's completely irrelevant what the Italian article says, that's unsourced hokum. It's sad that you made it obvious that you edited the article Ladin language without even knowing reliable scientific literature as to the topic. You must try to find sources before editing, and not afterwards. And it's even worse when you start an edit war without having sources...

c) Well, maybe you had the best intentions asking Theirrulez for help, but the "experienced and skilled" user ("experienced" indeed, I alredy wrote about some interesting aspects of his wikipedia history...) didn't even bother to have a look at the talk page or to add sources or to explain his motivations: he simply restored exactly your additions, containing grammar mistakes, spelling mistakes and still unsourced claims.

d) This report is not baseless. It may become baseless when the reported user (but the others, whose names were mentioned here, too) finally commits himself to find a consensual solution on the talk page of the article. I already wrote quite a lot there. Naturally, this can't work out as long as users edit unilaterally the article. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

This is about Patavium, not Felisopus, but anyhow:

Felisopus repeatedly added the statement that ladins were subject to a constant process of "germanisation" (here, here and here) and denies the existence of the ladin ethnic group (here, here and here) without giving a single source and despite being reverted on that matter by 2 different editors. After realizing, he's alone with his POV, he calls for help, and two other editors (Theirrules and Patavium, both known on it.wiki for edit-warring on the same topics) chime in and revert, again without pointing to a single source. I would propose a ban for all three wranglers, that were unable to underpin their edits/reverts.--Sajoch (talk) 15:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is becoming very long again. Unfortunately Sajoch and Mai-Sachme are specialists in making up extremely long discussions, hundreds of kb are not a rarity, with the sole aim of preventing edits they do not like. They make total reverts even when they do not agree with a word, so the behaviour in this case is nothing new.

But if Mai-Sachme's action ist not collaborative but still handable, the case of Sajoch is much more complicated. He repeatedly tried to damage Italian Wikipedia, deleting edits and making comments clearly showing that he has no idea at all and that especially in discussions he was just playing the troll. It was very hard to stop him. Therefore his sanction was quite severe (but not as much as would have been necessary in his case). Now he tries this game again, manipulating census data, making original research with numbers and reverting sourced data.

Back to this case, the total-revert-action was initiated by Sajoch and Mai-Sachme against Felisopus's and Theirrules's edits. I came afterwards in order to fix things. Just look at the chronology in order to see who made massive deletions.

And we see again the problem: Sajoch has no idea about Germanization, so he does not allow to edit about it. He only knows Italianization, so it is only allowed to write about that. Sorry, but this is not acceptable.

And again: he accuses Felisopus of denying the existence of a Ladin ethnicity. Well, this is not clearly assessed, there are still scholars assessing that being Ladin a mere Italian dialect Ladins are not entitled to be a detached ethnicity. Even Austrians counted Ladins as Italians. But the funny thing is that on one side Sajoch is scandalized if someone denies the existence of Ladin ethinicity, proposing even his ban. On the other side he has no scruples in denying the Ladin identity of thousands of people overtly declaring their Ladinità. The problem is that for Sajoch only counts his POV. So he accuses others of being POV. Well, on one Wikipedia he has been already unmasked. Maybe it's the turn for the next.--Patavium (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

No Patavium, my contribution here is short, while you're stretching the discussion with irrelevant and false claims. The one who is short of arguments needs to troll... Again you show, that you're unable to discuss the topic and search consensus on the topics talk page. That's why Mai-Sachme's decision to notify you here was overdue.--Sajoch (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Patavium: I would welcome if you did not resort to personal attacks and distortions of the issues. Firstly: You were also sanctioned for your behavior on the Italian wiki and now you're bring your grudge from the Italian wiki to the English wiki! Secondly: "to damage Italian Wikipedia", "clearly showing that he has no idea at all", "just playing the troll"... are your very own POV and I believe the constitute personal attacks. Therefore I would welcome it if you were to cancel those comments and refrain from further attacks on other editors! Thirdly: some of your comparisons (Germanization, Italianization), claims (Even Austrians counted Ladins as Italians), distortions of facts (no scruples in denying the Ladin identity of thousands of people) are despicable as they mix separate discussion points into one sentence with the aim of making Sajoch look dishonest. I believe such willful misrepresentation of facts expose a deep seated battleground mentality on your side that I find disconcerting. I hope you will refrain from such acts from now on as I do not want to see this discussion drift deeper into your personal animosities with Sajoch. Thank you; noclador (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Noclador: Sajoch's damages on Italian wikipedia were verifed and confirmed by several blocks. It'simply a fact that Sajoch has been reported and blocked many time for POV-pushing trough disruptive edits such as manipulation of sources, removing sourced contents, and discrediting his interlocutors. There's no personal attack by Patavium in noticing it, so I kindly invite everyone to avoid other wrongful or unsubstantiated accuses.Thanks. Theirrulez (talk) 15:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You might have missed that this case here was opened as a response to massive edit warring in the article Ladin language by Patavium, not by Sajoch. Since Patavium has apparently stopped with this behaviour and will hopefully, from now on, discuss (based on reliable sources) any kind of controversial addition before taking direct action, this report may be closed. But please be aware that I won't hesitate to re-open it as soon as I notice the next undiscussed or (even worse) unsourced edit, maybe combined with the sudden and surprising appearance (yes Theirrulez, I'm talking about you) of follow-up edit warriors. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

@Noclador. I do not understand your intervention.

It is not misrepresenation, it's the violations assessed on another Wikipedia. I did not want to cite it, because it has nothing to do with English Wikipedia, but as other users continue to make references to other language Wikipedias I had to respond to the accusations against me.

By the way, Sajoch intensified his actions on Italian Wikipedia filling the accounts of other users with overtly wrong and misleading information. I can give you the evidence, if you want. Unfortunately Italian Wikipedia is extremely liberal to this respect and there were no additional consequences for him.

Your allegations are not true. I made no comparisons between Germanization and Italianization, I simply mentioned the first in the article without comparing anything. It is no claim that Austrians counted Ladins as Italians. Do you want me to source even my contributions to discussion pages, don't you? As to the "distortions of facts": maybe you did not read Sajoch's contributions. He denies the evidence of linguistic declarations on one hand and on the other he invents his own statistic, completely ignoring demography. And even after a long discussion, he continues to make edit wars.

Therefore I continue not to understand this notification. As I said, two editors had made additions that were removed via edit-war. Then I tried to fix things and the edit war went on. The edit warriors were Sajoch - to me no wonder - and unfortunately also Mai-Sachme.

As I see, the latter has started a thematic discussion. That's fine to me.--Patavium (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Page protected - The article on the Ladin language is fully protected for ten days. Please use the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Proudbulgarian and User:MacedonianBoy reported by User:Peacemaker67 (ARBMAC warnings needed) (Result: Block, warning)

Page: Independent Macedonia (1944) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Proudbulgarian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: MacedonianBoy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [245]

User:Proudbulgarian

• 1st revert: [246]
• 2nd revert: [247]
• 3rd revert: [248]
• 4th revert: [249]
• 5th revert: [250]
• 6th revert: [251]
• 7th revert: [252]
• 8th revert: [253]

User:MacedonianBoy

• 1st revert: [254]
• 2nd revert: [255]
• 3rd revert: [256]
• 4th revert: [257]
• 5th revert: [258]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [259] and [260]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [261]

Comments:
I have not been engaged in this edit war at all, and have only been monitoring it as one of the Balkans articles I keep an eye on. The edit summaries referring to vandalism and their failure to go to the talk page in any meaningful way illustrate the edit-warring behaviour. I have reminded the editors on the talkpage about ARBMAC, but this behaviour has continued regardless. As this is an ARBMAC area, both users probably need an ARBMAC warning from an admin as well as any other sanctions considered appropriate, although User:MacedonianBoy has been onwiki for years and has been blocked half-a-dozen times (all in 2008-2009), the last time on ARBMAC [262]. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I was forced to revert the user, because I asked the admin Future Perfect at S. to react, three times, and I did not get any response. You can see that I was aware of the rule, I explained that to the admin. Additionally, the user Proudbulgarian reverts and deletes content without discussion, lead by his nationalistic frustrations. You can see that on the talk page of Independent Macedonia, I was talking to my self. Similarly he deletes contents from Karposh's Rebellion. Someone needs to react, you let him edit war for a long time, not just with me, but with the User:Edward321, Proudbulagrian reverts Edwars for a long time. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a note, the first edit of mine is interwiki (on mk Wiki we were editing the article) and I saw that some things were misspelled in Macedonian, so I corrected it. Than Proudbg came and started his thing.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Why try and blame an admin for your own actions? You could have posted here if the admin you asked was unable to respond. Plus, you're doing the same at Karposh's Rebellion as well. Edit-warring is done by two (at least) and you're deep in it as one could get. Especially given your block log. --Laveol ^T 21:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

First the admin was able to react (he was online) and secondly, the edit warring was started long before I came. See the history and than post something here. Deletion of contents is something I do not support and therefore I reverted the user. He deletes everything and no one bothers, except Edward321. What can you do when the other person (Proudbg in this case) ignores every talk page discussions? In normal situations that would be counted as vandalism.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry? "Every" talk page discussion? There is only one that you started on the page in question. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, it was only one. We talked on mk wiki as well. I did not open discussion about his deletion of the text from Karposh Rebellion since it's worthless. He does not answer me. Both pages are still missing text.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that ProudBulgarian be blocked for 72 hours and notified under WP:ARBMAC. The other reverting party was MacedonianBoy. In general, MB's edits appear to be closer to the past consensus on these articles but he has been warned and sanctioned under ARBMAC many times in the past, and this is clearcut edit-warring. The next episode like this will probably result in a three-month ban of MB from the Balkans under WP:ARBMAC. If ProudBulgarian, the other warrior, continues to revert after his block expires the same thing should be considered for him. EdJohnston (talk) 01:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems fair. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I accept that. And what about the articles? Would they be reverted to the stable versions, before the user deleted the text?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 08:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Result: ProudBulgarian blocked 72 hours and warned under ARBMAC. MacedonianBoy is warned that further warring may lead to a topic ban even if he believes he is defending the consensus version. Next time don't revert, make a report. As to restoring the stable versions, ask Future Perfect for his advice or start a talk discussion somewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Darkstar1st reported by User:DD2K (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Nazism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Darkstar1st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [263]

• 1st revert: [264]
• 2nd revert: [265]
• 3rd revert: [266]
• 4th revert: [267]
• 5th revert: [268]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [269]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [User talk:Darkstar1st#Edit_warring]

Comments:
Editor has consistently tried to force his POV into articles related to Nazism(Socialism related articles, ect..), and has been blocked numerous times for edit warring, and despite this still claims there is no need to bring issues to the Talk page before introducing controversial material into an article. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like an equal number of back-and-forths by each side, with tag teaming on one side to keep numbers of any individual down. North8000 (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

That's nonsense. One editor made nine reverts, and was reverted by five separate editors, who were following talk page consensus. Of course there was an equal number of edits "by each side", but this is evidence of one editor's extreme stubbornness, not of tag-team editing. RolandR (talk) 08:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Wifione ^Message 01:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Enric Naval reported by User:Santos30 (Result:No violation; editors discussing)

Crown of Castile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Enric Naval (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [270]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User:109.154.249.15: [271]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [272]

Comments:

• User:Enric Naval re-start a 2nd edit warring to impose the same changes unreferenced, with wikipedia:es [273] = WP:PRIMARY.
• User:Enric Naval have a disruptive behavior and imposes a war flag that confuses the correct flag of Spain [274] and deletes the coat of arms.

--Santos30 (talk) 11:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have replied in the talk page[275].

About revert of the coat, I should have started a discussion instead of picking a new image when I was tired. I have started a discussion here. I have left for now the same coat as the Spanish wikipedia, and I have explained the reason in the talk page. Hopefully, Santos30 can agree that we want to display the last coat not the first one. We are already displaying the last flag not the first one. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Given that there was no 3RR violation, and that there is now a productive thread begun on the article talkpage, report closed with no action. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Volkovp56 reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: 48h)

Page: List of How to Rock episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Volkovp56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [276]

• 1st revert: [277]
• 2nd revert: [278]
• 3rd revert: [279]
• 4th revert: [280]
• 5th revert: [281]

Diff of edit warring: [282]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [283]

Comments:
This is about a fairly major restructuring of the article based on an ambiguous reliable source. The original change was made by Volkopv56 [284] using that reference, a YouTube video of a network promo. His change was reverted [285] by an IP with a detailed edit summary as to why the edit was not acceptable. Volkopv56 has continued since then to assert his desired edit and has ignored all attempts to communicate and discuss the issue. He has not violated the 3RR but it appears he will continue to impose his desired changes and gives no indication he is willing to discuss this or work for consensus. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

After being notified about this discussion, reverted article again, gave no reason in edit summary and did not add to discussion. It looks like he has no intention to interact with others about this. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocked - 48 hours for long-term edit warring at List of How to Rock episodes. Others who are interested in the issue have been discussing it on Talk. This editor does not participate there. In fact, he has never left a talk comment or an edit summary. EdJohnston (talk) 06:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

User:The Hut reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: 4 days)

Page: Marco Rubio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 17:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 00:06, 8 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* "Religious views" */")
2. 00:37, 8 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* "Religious views" */")
3. 01:12, 8 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* "Religious views" */")
4. 01:39, 8 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* "Religious views" */")
5. 17:00, 8 November 2012 (edit summary: "")

• Diff of warning: here

• Edits listed above are groups in sequences (except for the last, a single edit). This editor has made no attempt to discuss on talk page.

—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• This editor has now removed the notice of this noticeboard discussion -- perhaps he/she has nothing to say here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 4 days The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Rhode Island Red reported by User:Collect (Result: )

Page: Frank L. VanderSloot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rhode Island Red (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [286] prior to IP edit

• 1st revert: [287] 21:26 5 Nov
• 2nd revert: [288] 00:59 6 Nov
• 3rd revert: [289] 03:55 6 Nov
• 4th revert: [290] 15:22 6 Nov

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [291] with request ot self-revert

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [292] extended discussion in fact

Comments:

Editor has been repeatedly warned about edit war (including lengthy blocks and other warnings), and this is a clear 4RR absolute biright-line violation. Collect (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

RIR made four reverts, as listed above. The first of the four is this one, which is claimed to be removal of a copyright violation -- a Youtube video of a local TV news broadcast. EdJohnston (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a 4RR or even 3RR here. Two of those reverts in the list above are unrelated. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't have to be the same edit. Also, I don't believe copyright is given the same exemption that BLP is given regarding the 3rr. Arkon (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

"4RR" does not require all the reverts to be the same - the fact is that there are four clear reverts in 24 hoors, and this has been noted in the past for the same editor. I do not think the youtube video at hand representa the BLP exception. What I find most troubling is that the editor seems to do this on a regular basis on this article. And I think edit war where a single editor makes dozens of reverts on the same article each month is pretty evident. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

George Louis and Collect are long-term colluders who are both involved with WP Project Conservatism and have been POV pushing for quite some time. They have a long history of obstructionism, whitewashing and harassment of editors on the Vandersloot page. This type of witch-hunt is getting to be an almost weekly occurrence with these guys. Who in their right mind would object to removal of a video that violates copyright? Epic dickery! Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:NPA please. Also note that I am not and have never been a member of that wikiproject, that I am not and have never "colluded" with any editor on VanderSloot, that your edit war is the issue here, and that your history of making such charges is indicative of a battleground attitude. And if you consider 4RR reports to be a "witch-hunt that is even more proof of your attitude. Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:DONTBEADICK please. Also, note that I said that you were “involved with” (not that you are "a member of") WP Project Conservatism, which is a fact; there’s no need for such an emphatic denial of something that wasn’t actually said. In fact, your POV pushing has been an ongoing concern there, as indicated by comments like: "I'd like to point out that Collect's behavior is why there's a problem. He's a conservative editor who viciously and falsely attacks anyone who criticizes WikiProject Conservatism."[293]. And yes, I do consider your trumped up 4RR accusation to be a witch-hunt, and a waste of everyone’s time, since it’s obvious that I didn’t violate 4RR. You and George together use these retributive accusations to obstruct work on the page and intimidate opposition. It's time to straighten up and fly right. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

RIR is skating on the edge of respectability with his or her argument above, except for his or her inexcusable labeling of User:Collect as a "dick" (really fighting words where I come from, west of the Mississippi). It is true that Red's removal of the copyrighted video was probably justified, but I would like to point out that "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." If any interested Administrator would care to examine Mr. or Ms. Red's persistent and automatic reversions over the past few months, all of us attempting to improve the Frank L. VanderSloot article would certainly appreciate it. We are constantly being blocked from such improvement by Red's Reversion after Reversion after Reversion. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

That's preposterous George. I did not call Collect a dick. I did not violate 3RR. Your off-topic moaning and wailing is pointless. Back off with the harassment or I will file a long overdue user conduct dispute regarding both of you. Smarten up. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

And while this has languished here, he's had 3 more reverts today. Well done. Arkon (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Arzel Arkon, are you trying to provoke a 3 RR violation?[294] I opened up a Talk page thread to address a serious POV issue.[295] So far, you've provided no justification for your reversion. This is exactly the sort of unreasonable obstruction that I've been referring to. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see Arzel commenting here. No one is making you do anything. Edit warring is your choice. Arkon (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You reverted without an edit summary[296] and you completely bypassed the Talk page. That's needlessly provocative WP:TE, so you shouldn't be so flippant about it. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You can continue to lash out, or maybe try not edit warring. Your choice. Arkon (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you are at fault since you chose to ignore WP:TALKDONTREVERT -- that's considered WP:DE. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

So lashing out it is, good to know. Arkon (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It's disconcerting that you would be so smug about ignoring WP:TALKDONTREVERT. Apparently you feel that you are exempt from the rules; that's problematic. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Corporate Minion reported by User:Cantaloupe2 (Result: Both warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: more or less this version: [297]

• #1
• #2
• #3
• #4

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [298] AND the user's page [299] and they were both ignored. User refused to participate, then used Twinkie to revert edits he disagree with.

Comments:
User exhibits pattern of using anti-vandalism tool Twinkie to revert edits he does not agree with. Here are some examples of such usage in addition to the aforementioned conflict:

• Reverting GF edit
• and again... Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for IBAN (again)

I was not aware of the rules using Twinkle (nor did I even realize that's what I was using).

I would like to request an interaction ban again, as I have done before on AN[300] and on COIN[301] between myself and this user that continues to WP:HOUND and embrace a battleground mentality in a campaign targeted against me. For weeks this editor has been stalking every edit I make and finding every possible excuse to criticize me - creating contentious arguments at every opportunity. As I have said before, Cantaloupe has made me uncomfortable contributing anywhere knowing he will pounce on me. I do not have the patience or willpower to argue with him about every sentence of every article until the end of time.

He says I reverted edits I "disagree with." Cantaloupe has spent hours criticizing my sourcing - I can't reasonably assume he doesn't know better. Given the context, we both know these edits are targeted at me and are not good-faith improvements, nor do they represent even an attempt at being neutral. Using your editing privileges to target editors is the definition of hounding. Corporate 01:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Both editors are in violation of 3RR at this point. I don't think much would be accomplished by blocks, however, since both have stopped edit warring, and this is an ongoing issue.
• I concur with Corporate Minion (CM) that Cantaloupe has been "wiki-stalking" him. Corporate Minion does have a disclosed COI as a PR professional so extra scrutiny is expected and proper, but at some point that can cross the line into harassment.
• A large part of the contested material that Cantaloupe added was sourced to a personal blog.
• CM should have engaged on the talk page instead of edit warring, but I can understand his reluctance to engage with Cantaloupe in discussion over the content, given the history.
• I don't think there's any issue with Twinkle access here. Nothing either user did with Twinkle couldn't have been done just as easily without Twinkle.
• I was notified of this discussion by Corporate Minion. I was the responder to CM's requested edit template who inserted his replacement draft of the article, because I found it to be an improvement and not particularly promotional in tone.
• An interaction ban may be justified if Cantaloupe continues to harass CM by destroying his work at all costs, using tactics like inserting negative information sourced to personal blogs, and baiting edit wars just to report CM. Gigs (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• The rules say that bright line is when you exceed the 3rd edit, meaning 4th edit, which I have not crossed. Further, in each revert, I asked corporate to provide explanation on talk page which he's ignored and resorted to repeatedly revert using Twinkie script. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• That's not how 3RR works. It's not a magic "gotcha" where you can do exactly 3 reverts and bait someone else into doing 4 and expect to get them blocked and not you. These sorts of tactics are exactly why I feel CM is justified in his claim that you are harassing him. Gigs (talk) 01:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• When I made the edit, he reverted without any explanation. Request for comment was ignored, then proceeded to inappropriately use an anti-vandalism tool to repeatedly revert mindlessly.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Just as a technical point, twinkle is now a gadget, and we therefore no longer have the ability to disenable it for a particular editor. Even when we did have it, we did so only for consistent abuse of it, not accidental misuse a few times. I and every active editor have selected the wrong thing from a menu once in a while. I've seen it called a slip of the mouse. It's true we are getting very dependent upon twinkle, but then twinkle has been getting more and more capable, DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I actually recommended that Corporate try for an IBAN earlier to head further conflict like this off, but Cantaloupe was unwilling to enter into a voluntary one and the AN thread was largely ignored. This may be due to the fact that the majority of the discussion actually occurred at COIN. Of course, that followed discussion Cantaloupe started at the NPOV board (note that link is not yet archived). My recommendation to Corporate for an IBAN is preserved at my talk archive. Cantaloupe has engaged in TE, HOUNDING, BATTLEGROUND mentality, and (it now seems) BAITing concerning Corporate. --Nouniquenames 06:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing/votestacking

Corporate has canvassed four different editors of his choosing in a span of 20 minutes to come here and comment in a seeming attempt to recruit someone to represent him to sway the discussion rather than let the discussion run its course.

• Nouniquenames
• Dennis_Bratland
• Gigs
• DGG

Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

DGG and myself are both known for being pretty tough on COI issues, and both of us were involved in the Crashplan talk page discussions prior to this edit war. I don't consider his solicitation of either of us two to be improper. I can't comment on the other solicitations. To me, this is yet another illustration of your trying to find any little excuse to catch corporate minion breaking a rule. This kind of behavior is harassment and isn't acceptable. Gigs (talk) 01:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

While my COI disclosure is what has attracted the harassment, I don't find it particularly relevant otherwise. I think the editors that would be good to canvass are those that care deeply about civility issues. Corporate 02:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Having commented on the discussion, I would naturally follow that page and pages related to it. And I suppose people knows that canvassing me does little good, as I do not always say what someone might expect. I note that I as well as Gigs have objected to some of the material CM added; but only some of it, not everything about which is possible to fabricate the objection. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

CM asked me to look into something on his talk page since I have had dealings with both users and their conflict before. This was a natural extension. I have provided him guidance there in this manner specifically relating to WP:EW. I don't consider his asking me to join in as improper, as I have watched a large portion of the history unfold. --Nouniquenames 06:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I would take it a step further than DGG's comment and say that some of my past work is so bad it's embarrassing. Sometimes content that was shared on the Talk page six months ago was actually written by me over a year ago. In large part, my personal shortcomings as an imperfect editor has given Cantaloupe validation for his stalking and personal attacks. So long as there is even a shred of valid content-based complaints, it is difficult to take a clear side. In this case in particular, given the context, it is not reasonable to AGF the case. Cantaloupe has complained about my use of blogs as sources to inject promotionalism when these blogs are some of the most recognizeable names in the field and are highly ranked; he criticizes the use of valid reliable sources as "just opinions" but adds critical content from a personal blog. Any reasonable person familiar with the background would know that both the edits and this complaint are not made in good faith. This latest incident is the clearest possible confirmation - we do not AGF in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary and in the context of civil/battleground/ABF/HOUND/etc. problems.

If civility, AGF, and hounding are policies, they must have some kind of enforcement; otherwise they are nothing more than tips. Corporate 14:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I take it that you're referring to this edit. The source isn't used to support any claim and it is primarily used for the email correspondence that marks the company's words. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

(e.c.) @Cantaloupe2: are you seriously telling us that you put in a blog posting to a consumer complaint so you could post the boiler-plate non-informative company reply that it's a rare occurrence, but they will look into it, as significant NPOV content? DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Closure. I see that Corporate Minion formally broke 3RR on November 6 and 7 while Cantaloupe2 made it up to three reverts himself. Cantaloupe2's edits appear to have a variety of problems, as others have noted above. In my opinion this report should be closed with a warning to both parties. At present Cantaloupe2 seems to me to be behaving worse. He would be well advised to take a break from editing at Crash Plan for a week or two. Admins at this noticeboard are not in a position to impose IBANs. An interaction ban was previously requested at WP:AN, where no action was taken. If Cantaloupe2 continues to be distressed at the overall pattern of Corporate's edits he should consider opening an RFC/U. If he continues to focus his efforts on individual articles where Coporate has worked on the assumption that Corporate is editing badly this could have unfortunate results and could lead to admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

@EdJohnston, your assessment seems good. I don't see any benefit in letting this linger open. --Nouniquenames 16:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

@Corporate, are you seriously telling us that you put in a blog posting to a consumer complaint so you could post the boiler-plate non-informative company reply that it's a rare occurrence, but they will look into, as significant NPOV comment? What information does that add, besides that they made an attempt to answer in some fashion at least one complaints. If an article on a company had a sentence: They reply to customer comments, I'd remove it as meaningless promotion, and, normally, so would you. I think this bad faith is enough to justfy an iban from any uninvolved admin and we needn't worry where the request was posted. NOT BURO. DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

@DGG: My impression is that Cantaloupe2 is the one not listening to feedback at the moment. Instead of an IBAN, I'd rather issue a warning that Cantaloupe2 can be blocked for disruption if he continues to follow Corporate around, but it would help if at least one other admin agreed with that. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I think DGG meant to direct that comment at Cant. Based on the fragmented portion of his comment above, I suspect the two of you had an edit conflict and it got muddled. Corporate 15:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

What feedback am i not reading? This notice is specifically concerning that Corporate Minion made four reverts crossing the bright line and while doing so, refused to cooperate one bit in discussing the changes in relevant talk page. If he didn't like the reference, that is where he should have hashed it out. Are you saying that diffs presented in the complaint does not support that he crossed the bright line? As you can see, I edit all kinds of different things. I don't represent the company or its competitors and I do not have a COI with the subject. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 05:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It is too late now to issue blocks solely based on 3RR issue, since the last revert is more than 24 hours in the past. The issues of long-term warring and disruptive editing are still on the table. While Corporate minion works with others and listens to feedback, you seem to be continuing a crusade. EdJohnston (talk) 05:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

So, no matter how many reverts an editor makes, the 3RR violation is null and void once 24 hours have elapsed since the very last reversion even if the user have made four or more edits reversions in the 24 hour time frame? Please clarify. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks like this issue started in September '11, when Cant read a story[302] in SEO journal on How to Link Spam Wikipedia. He was probably quite offended,[303][304][305][306] as he developed (or maybe already had) an animosity towards SEO[307][308][309], an accusation he has denied in the past.[310][311] This has resulted in many similar problems regarding COI and ABF with other editors.[312][313][314][315][316][317][318] By and large his anti-SEO crusade isn't a bad thing; on the contrary, we need editors that are motivated to police bad SEO behavior, however in the past he has called feedback "frivelous."[319] I am not AGFing here at all; Cant knows this kind of personal blog is not acceptable.[320][321][322][323][324][325] Since Cantaloupe believes my work here is SEO-related[326] and he has a campaign against SEO, I find it unlikely our collaboration will ever be productive for anyone. I would request an IBAN forthwith if such a request is reasonable. Corporate 14:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You're making big assumptions here. You made a contentious claim like "Cantaloupe has spent hours criticizing my sourcing - I can't reasonably assume he doesn't know better." We discussed how adding links can be SEO and an explanation was given to you that why they can still be SEO despite no follow. As demonstrated here, my edits do not revolve around you. There's nothing bad about getting attracted to certain areas. You have your own areas, I have my own area and overlapping is inevitable. Through editing in various different areas and interacting with users like DGG, I've learned WP:RS is contextual. If you have reservations with the source, it is expected that you utilize the RS noticeboard or the talk page to hash it out. You've demonstrated that you're fairly proficient with Wikipedia. More so than I am in some regard. I'm not convinced you were unaware of 3RR bright line. It's no excuse for reverting repeatedly with Twinkle and flat out refusing to discuss around contents or use RS Noticeboard. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Result: Both parties warned. I see that Corporate Minion formally broke 3RR on November 6 and 7 while Cantaloupe2 made it up to three reverts himself. Such a combination has been known to result in blocks of both parties, when a report is closed promptly after the reverts end. Cantaloupe2's edits appear to have a variety of problems, as others have noted above. At present Cantaloupe2 seems to me to be behaving worse. He would be well advised to take a break from editing at Crash Plan for a week or two. As an individual admin I can't impose an IBAN. If Cantaloupe2 continues to be distressed at the overall pattern of Corporate's edits he should consider opening an RFC/U. If he continues to focus his efforts on individual articles where Coporate has worked on the assumption that Corporate is editing badly this could have unfortunate results and could lead to admin action. I advise Cantaloupe2 to read WP:HOUND and WP:BATTLE carefully. On the flip side, nothing requires Corporate to keep reverting if one of his edits is undone by Cantaloupe2. That would be a good time to use Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to drag it on any longer than necessary, but do we not have enough consensus for an IBAN?

• "An interaction ban may be justified if Cantaloupe continues to harass CM" -Gigs
• "I actually recommended that Corporate try for an IBAN earlier" -Noun
• "I think this bad faith is enough to justfy an iban from any uninvolved admin and we needn't worry where the request was posted. NOT BURO." -DGG

I just push for it because I fear we will end up on ANI again soon. Corporate 17:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for validating with diffs that we have had edit which establish that areas in which we edit have some overlap before we even came across. It hallenges your allegation that I started making edits to WP:HOUND you. Who is hounding who now? It has come to my attention through my watch list that you're now going through and editing articles that we've both participated and remained stable for a few weeks. An example on this is the article astroturfing. You objected to inclusion of USAF material as for "inadequate" source and removed it. I reinstated, along with accessible reference which was not present at the time you removed and it stayed in for a few weeks. You're now hounding me in vindictive retaliation. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)