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

Previous version reverted to: [1] First instance of the removal of the information from the infobox.

• 1st revert: [2]
• 2nd revert: [3]
• 3rd revert: [4]
• 4th revert: [5]
• 5th revert: [6]
• 6th revert: [7]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9]

Comments:

Brandmeister keeps removing the motive of the murder from the infobox. George Spurlin (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Wow, if Brandmeister wasn't involved in this case I'd have called him to help us extinguish the fire at this page. The article has been fully protected for 1 week to get this BLP issue settled by discussion. Furthermore I've done the following:
  • Frida1983 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked for 24h for edit-warring and vandalism. Preventive block to avoid the editing of related articles by this new SPA. I've also warned Brandmeister and Yerevanci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) in this case. De728631 (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [10]

• 1st revert: [11] 13:54 4 Sep
• 2nd revert: [12] 15:07 4 Sep
• 3rd revert: [13] 15:40 4 Sep
• 4th revert: [14] 19:37 4 Sep
• 5th revert: [15] 20:40 4 Sep

4 of which are basically related, the other one is, nonetheles, a revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16] at 15:44 4 Sep (at the 3RR mark)

My edits took note of the comments of others and added citations, created compromise wording, and contributed to the organization and prioritization of the articles. They were not edit warring or simple "undo" edits. They were explained in Edit Summaries. It is unfortunate to see that they have been mischaracterized as such.SPECIFICO 22:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Response at [17] and at [18] where he seems to misapprehend what edit war is.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19] also multiple editors at SPECIFICO's user talk page as well.

Pretty clear 5RR in under 7 hours as far as I can tell. User made the last revert well after a gentle warning (2 other editors also gently warned the user) . Collect (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not a "new user" unless new users add userboxes to their userspace at the start, and know the Wikipedia argot. He also made 5 edits in one day as an IP to the Paul Ryan page [20]. He states at [21] that he is this IP editor. Collect (talk) 22:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

My edits took note of the comments of others and added citations, created compromise wording, and contributed to the organization and prioritization of the articles. They were not edit warring or simple "undo" edits. They were explained in Edit Summaries. It is unfortunate to see that they have been mischaracterized as such. Please also see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SPECIFICO

I also posted on the Paul Ryan talk page section concerning this section of the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Ryan

This user is clearly inexperienced so I think any sort of administrative action would be misguided and a case of WP:BITE.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest otherwise - the user uses Wikipedia argot as though he were Athena newly sprung from the head of Zeus <g>. Considering such a person a newbie is mind-boggling. And the person clearly still does not recognize that he violated a bright line rule - after being warned by three editors. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Should you suspect sockpuppetry then you should be filing an SPI. However, I do not believe this is the case. Intelligent people can easily adapt to Wikipedia norms and practices to an extent that they would be seen as too familiar to be new editors. Until you can provide compelling evidence to the contrary we should operate under the assumption that this is a new editor.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

--Collect, for your information, my first edit on Wikipedia was made on Aug 11, 2012. In response to messages from another editor, I created the ID as documented at the link you cited. I am surprised and disappointed at the sarcastic, aggressive, and hostile tone of your remarks. They do not appear to reflect the intention of this community to assume good faith and help newcomers such as myself to get up to speed. On a purely personal basis, I must say that your hostility and hairtrigger attack make me wonder whether contributing to this community is a good use of my time.SPECIFICO 01:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that biting the noob is not the right answer. If anything, the article needs to be protected so as to end the ongoing edit wars and get editors to talk to each other. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Here are SPECIFICO's edits from Sept. 4. Only edits #1 and #2 are consecutive. Three edits from this list are marked 'Undid' and one is marked 'Replaced.' Looks to me that WP:3RR is broken:

1. 03:39, 4 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Personal life */ Consolidate and simplify material on health, fitness, and athletic activities.")
2. 03:42, 4 September 2012 (edit summary: "")
3. 03:50, 4 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Early life and education */")
4. 13:54, 4 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* 2012 vice presidential campaign */ Added references demonstrating that the assertion of lies and misrepresentations in Rep. Ryan's speech was indeed widespread.")
5. 15:07, 4 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 510765188 by Eustress (talk) My revision restored text removed by an editor who claimed no widespread criticism. You should delete some less relevant sources rather than the facts.")
6. 15:40, 4 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* 2012 vice presidential campaign */ Restored citation to recognized journalist. Replaced vague "drew criticism" with specific statement, qualified to indicate such criticism was not universally accepted.")
7. 19:37, 4 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 510789085 by Mforg (talk) Ryan cites his father's death as influencing Ryan's philosophy and policies. Fitness is discussed in the Personal section, but is not critical to Ryan's politics.")
8. 20:40, 4 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 510807253 by Mforg (talk)Better solution, remove the grandfather and great grandfather here, since they're cited in Personal section on fitness & didn't directly impact Ryan as father did.")

SPECIFICO has been rapidly editing a lot of the negative statements in the article (for example edits #4, #5 and #6). It's hard to extend good faith to someone who appears so determined to have the article read in the exact way he prefers. EdJohnston (talk) 02:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Alternate interpretation: various editors have been whitewashing the article by removing "negative" (read: true) statements and SPECIFICO has been too hasty in reverting them. This speaks of noobishness, not malice. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope - it is "Athena springing forth from the head of Zeus" time. And I am simply astonished at your appearance here. If SPECIFICO is a noob, then I am William Randolph Hearst <g>. Noobs do not appear with userboxes, knowing the argot here, and making multiple reverts with the edit summaries used (heck - most noobs do not even know what a userbox is (and for sure do not use them), or an edit summary, and for sure do not know the argot here). As to your explicit charge of "whitewashing" -- that is absurd, Multiple editors of all stripes concurred on this one. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Hearst, reports of your death were clearly exaggerated. Some editors try to blend in with the more experienced ones by mimicking their behavior. If you really think it's a sock, go to SPI; don't sully this 3RR discussion with unsupported accusations. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

If someone had bothered to look at his edits, they'd see his first was to say that he would now be posting under a username instead of an IP. His immediate previous IP appears to be "24.151.25.89", see this link for those contributions. Looking at the history for Talk:Peter Schiff, it looks like IP previously posted under the IP User:24.151.19.17 where he was warned here for edit warring in mid-August. Those IPs go to the same ISP. So this user has almost certainly been warned about edit warring before. There's no reason not to hold them accountable now. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

--I feel that I should reiterate that my edits repeatedly offered compromise or moderating language which addressed the concerns of those whose words I edited and that many also cleaned up awkward or redundant language, checked citations and did other housekeeping. As to my experience here, Jeez I can barely get a reference to create a proper footnote. That's about the limit of my expertise with the mechanics at this point.SPECIFICO 02:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

--To see the nature of my edits, please read my actual changes, not just that in several instances I began editing by clicking "undo" before working on the text. Thanks.SPECIFICO 02:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

Blocked - 31 hours for 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Page: You didn't build that (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 23:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 17:49, 4 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Response */ reinserted word that was removed when it was moved to this section from the lead")

   Restored "liberal commentators" from 07:45, 2 September 2012, previously removed at 08:06, 2 September 2012

2. 18:16, 4 September 2012 (edit summary: "moved content that was previously removed from the lead back into the lead, and merged duplicate content; c/e; added content that meets WP:VER; added subsections, removed tag")

   Restored "liberal commentators" from 07:45, 2 September 2012, previously removed at 08:06, 2 September 2012. Restored "On the lectern used during the speech", from 20:57, 3 September 2012, previously removed at 21:08, 3 September 2012

3. 19:24, 4 September 2012 (edit summary: "moved references, added new references; added wikilinks")

   Restored "liberal commentators" from 07:45, 2 September 2012, previously removed at 08:06, 2 September 2012

• Diff of warning: here

—Viriditas (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• Not a violation of 3RR, but clearly evidence of edit warring and disruptive behavior, considering the user has just come off a fresh block for edit warring on this article and engaging in the same, exact behavior. 3RR is not an entitlement to revert a page 3 times. The user has not learned anything from their block last week. Viriditas (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I have posted on my talk page, why I did not believe that my edits constituted edit warring, and stated that I will stop editing for the given period of time. As said, the above is not a violation of 3RR, and I would argue that others are edit warring, and are tag teaming my edits in an attempt to make the article unbalanced, and thus un-neutral, even if they do so in good faith of what they believe is what is best for the article. I can leave this article, but to do so is allow it to IMHO devolve into an article that is clearly anti-one candidate, and thus pro-another candidate.

As I have said elsewhere, I understand that due to my attempt to keep the article neutral, and not unbalanced, that my actions are vilified, and as such I have been personally attacked.

Additionally, should verified content be removed, as was done by others?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, addition of the liberal term was in good faith, even if others do not perceive it to be so, as per WP:VER I had added reliable sources to verify that liberal commentators did state XYZ, this of course was reverted by someone else.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, it takes two to edit-war. Or perhaps more if there's tag teaming going on. I trust whichever admin decides to look into this, he or she looks into the conduct of all involved edit-warriors. Or perhaps just lock the page until everyone agrees to stop edit-warring. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I just reverted some content that the OP edited back in despite having been rejected at the talkpage here. Are you accusing me of tag-teaming too? I'd really like to know... TMCk (talk) 23:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Dude, I didn't bother checking to see who is edit-warring with RightCowLeftCoast because it's obviously impossible to edit-war by yourself. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Note RCLC has not edited the article since the warning, and has said that he would : "stop editing the article until discussions have completed". aprock (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Please see the following: 1, 2. The things that I have gone through in editing contentious articles, even though my balance of edits are not in this field, lead me to want to take a break or quit. Have fun, regards.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Your most recent edit warring documented by this report shows a disturbing pattern of sneaky complex reverts buried beneath innocuous edits, as if you were intending to deceive others about your reverts. Your response indicates that you refuse to take any responsibility for your edits. Viriditas (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for continued warring on the same article where he was recently blocked. Three reverts is not an entitlement. EdJohnston (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

• 1st revert: [22]
• 2nd revert: [23]
• 3rd revert: [24]
• 4th revert: [25]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]. BTW, user knows what edit-warring is; they've been here before.

Comments: This is a rather silly dispute, with the editor inserting (in an FA) unreliably sourced information taken practically verbatim from the source, to argue that their fave band invented grunge. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I can't see any talk page consensus to include that band, as DustyCoffin claimed in their edit summary (diff 3), and the source is in fact improper for an FA. De728631 (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Hello, regret to inform but this user's first edit when back from the 24h block was to do the same revert again. I think we need a longer time-out. Tarc (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Blocked again, now for 1 week, by Mark Arsten. De728631 (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Page: You didn't build that (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Goethean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Current version

• 1st revert: removing false characterization of the Associated Press as a liberal commentator. second time I've removed this today. please do not use misleading edit summaries to hide your edit warring. thx.
• 2nd revert: undo telling removal of context.
• 3rd revert: AP != liberal

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:You didn't build that#Removed verified content, diff

Comments:
I stand accused of edit waring, rightly or wrongly, yet I believe my edits were in good faith and keeping with WP:VER, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPOV, even if others disagree. As I have said others have been involved in tag teaming my edits in the article in question, and one in particular has come close to WP:3RR, but has not violated it. Therefore, if I am to be accused of edit warring, others should be brought to light here as well.

I would much rather have the content locked, and that no bans to occur; but if I am to be banned and punished, let it be known that others are not without fault themselves.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Section appears to be in retaliation for Veritidas' section, above. — goethean ॐ 23:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
• No violation Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Page: Windows 8 editions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

• 2.137.128.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [28]
• 2nd revert: [29] (Today)
• 3rd revert: [30] (Today)
• 4th revert: [31] (Today)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 43#Windows 8 editions
• [33]

Comments:

This IP user constantly reverts to reinstate contents that a DRN case ruled as needing heavy sources. He has resorted to using two fake sources that do not verify the issue and the edit summary: "I am not going to allow censorship!" Codename Lisa (talk) 08:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Codename Lisa (talk) do not want this info in wikipedia. I gave two references the first time but Codename Lisa (talk) did not like them. In the last edit I added a Microsoft official reference but he still does not like it. Can we block Codename Lisa (talk) to prevent him censoring wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.149.169 (talk) 08:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected for a period of 3 days. Should the IP editor start edit warring again when protection expires, please re-report. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Page: Fritz Springmeier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 08:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 00:02, 5 September 2012 (edit summary: "")
2. 04:46, 5 September 2012 (edit summary: "")
3. 04:52, 5 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
4. 05:48, 5 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 510871563 by Dougweller (talk)")

—Dougweller (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Not a 3RR violation, but clear edit warring so Blocked – for a period of 24 hours --Chris (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Page: Iron Man 3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Borxdeluxe (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 edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]

Link of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Iron Man 3#Gravitons POV/OR changes to the starring list

Comments:

Despite ongoing discussion and a notice that new cast members are to be put in order that they joined the film, the edit war has unfortunately continued with the same POV/OR edits to the cast section and the info box. Also, Graviton 4 has been doing the same thing and was warned by Darkwarriorblake to discuss the issue on the talk page. What is the best way to resolve the situation? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours: unexplained reverts against consensus and refusal to cooperate. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Page: Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Eptified (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [40]
• 2nd revert: [41]
• Article is under 1RR/ARBPIA.

Editor is well aware of ABRPIA and 1RR - editor claims on userpage to be an alternate account of Factomancer, after losing password. Factomancer has a long history of being blocked in the area for multiple times of various lengths, and is familiar with the rules.

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Swarm ^X 01:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Page: Domestic violence in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff for 1st, 3rd and 4th reverts, diff for 2nd revert

• 1st revert: [42]
• 2nd revert: [43]
• 3rd revert: [44]
• 4th revert: [45]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User has been warned about edit warring many times before and was under 1RR about a month ago.

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

Comments:
User:Darkness Shines is removing valid content completely from the article citing it is undue in the lead section and edit warring on it while the article is on main page. --SMS ^Talk 16:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you enjoy filing bogus EW reports? Two of those edits are one after the other, hence only 1R. And if you had not misrepresented a source, used an opinion piece for statements of fact two of the other reverts would not have happened either. So I have 3 reverts on an article which is on the front page, this is due to your source misrepresentation. You even reverted[46] after I had started a discussion on the talk page[47]. There is no violation of 3RR here, and this should be closed as entirely bogus. Facts, not fiction (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• No violation Darkness shines is only at 3 reverts. Although I don't usually look at content in these situations (the DYK is why I looked), I tend to agree with DS, particularly as SMS was adding the opinion piece to the lead when it had no support or context in the body.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a report for edit warring. I would like to clarify here that I was working on the article while this was reverted out, I was going to expand further using the same source and another on this issue. And I was trying my best to make it worthy for the main page by avoiding issues like: one source in the lead is disputed at RSN, I didn't remove it. Another statement in the body (most probably written by DS) was without a source but I didn't add {{Cn}} tag and tried to find source for it, but the content I added was removed right away from the article. If it was undue in the lead, it could have been moved to another section. --SMS ^Talk 17:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Page: Disputed status of Gibraltar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Juanmatorres75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [48]
• 2nd revert: [49]
• 3rd revert: [50]
• 4th revert: [51]

‎Juanmatorres75 has been inserting a number of POV edits into this article for some time. He has been reverted by multiple editors [52], with editors pointing out the problems with his edits. Sole contributions in article space is edit warring on this article see [53]. Some of his contributions are especially problematic, with the insertion of claims that are not supported by the source he cites. I haven't tried to resolve this on the article talk page but I have tried to on his talk page. My patience is exhausted.

Note earlier attempt to avoid 3RR by editing from IP 87.223.139.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Much of the material he is trying to insert is WP:OR but after 2 reverts I'm not going to revert again and risk a block myself. Other material is directly lifted from [54] and is based on minority and fringe views such as Britain maintaining Gibraltar as a front for "shameful illegal activities".

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57], [58]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 19:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Page: Cognitive behavioral therapy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Widescreen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• diff
• diff
• diff (3rd revert)
• diff (4th revert)

• diff

CartoonDiablo (talk) 05:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

Widescreen has violated an agreement reached at the dispute noticeboard and has been edit-waring. He has been in an edit war previously as well. CartoonDiablo (talk) 05:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Widescreen reported himself for this a few days ago (see above) and was cleared. This was before his last reversion, which caught my eye as it claims that Freud cited "aliens" as sexual excitations in infancy (as opposed to "the preconditions for hysterical symptoms" which was made in prior edits.) That change was made by the person reporting the edit warring/3RR, CartoonDiablo, and as far as I can tell was not discussed on the talk page. We should take into account Widescreen's recent good faith towards reporting himself to this board, that he simply reverted to the prior version edited by BlueLikeThat like so, that this doesn't meet 3RR due to the time period, and a reasonable claim that his reversion was made due to unsourced content/vandalism. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

All three of the CBT reverts were today but yeah discount the last one, I accidentally did a revert with other content and didn't realize it was a legitimate revert (with the aliens etc.). However, Widescreen was not doing a good faith edit in the CBT article which is what the bulk of this is about. CartoonDiablo (talk) 06:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec) In which case, you should report the edit warring solely on the CBT page, rather than on two separate pages. He has three reverts on CBT, one on Psychoanalysis (the one which mentions aliens), and wasn't given a proper 3RR/edit warring notice (I think it's nice to write something custom but I've found it far more effective in situations like this to use the standard template.) This is just some helpful advise for dealing with edit warring in the future, please do not take it personally. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I did actually give a proper warning afterwards but the point's taken. CartoonDiablo (talk) 06:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually no, that's not an edit warring/3RR warning. That's the an3-notice, which is different. This is clearly edit warring but for 3RR you should place {{subst:uw-3RR}} on their talk page. There's a good reason why the AN3 template recommends that you give a user a proper warning first. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Technically, any four reverts are enough. As for being "cleared", that's not the case. He self-reported but it was rejected as nonsensical. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I've left a comment on Widescreen's talk page. They can either continue dispute resolution by starting an RfC, they can propose an alternative version of the prose on the talk page, or they can leave the issue alone. They must stop removing the text, which there's reasonable support for so far. So I we can leave this open until we get a response, but if they can't agree to stop reverting a block is probably going to be necessary. Swarm ^X 07:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

On the article talk page, I recommended an RfC, too, and insisted that they stop touching those passages until the RfC is resolved. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Would it be worth reverting it to what it was? All RfC aside, Widescreen "stops" reverting when it's reverted to the version he does even despite the consensus against it. CartoonDiablo (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Clear edit warring, but I will wait to see if Widescreen responds to comments on his talk page before placing any block. The disruption has stopped for now, and a block can be instituted should he resume the edit war. --Chris (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Stopped edit waring aside, it seems ridiculous that someone can get away with 4 reverts and not be violating 3RR. CartoonDiablo (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is a violation, but remember that blocks are preventative and not punitive. I'm willing to wait and see how the user will respond to comments on their talk page before any block is placed. If they agree to stop edit warring, then no block is required. --Chris (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

NB, User:Widescreen is known for his tactical edit warring on de.Wikipedia. Widescreen is lone record holder for community ban petitions, his most recent one De:Wikipedia:Benutzersperrung/Widescreen 7 (in which 48% voted for a community ban) was finished only yesterday... Widescreen is one of the earliest de.wiki users, yet one of the most controversial. That he's continuing just after he escaped the ban is not surprising, apparently Widescreen will never learn. --rtc (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I will keep that in mind as I continue to evaluate this situation. --Chris (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Rct, here on en:wp! Rct is still annoyed, because we've had a dispute, Rct lost and I was right. He was one of the POV-Users run a ban petition against me. He canceled it, because he found it was hopeless and trys to run another. This second was also canceled because of protests by other users. I think my work for wikipedia was never being criticised. Except POV-users like Rtc. The last ban petition was because I offer critic about admins :o). The results speak for itself.

I explain my reverts here. Please have a look and dicide for yourself if it was unjustifyed. 18:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Widescreen (talk • contribs)

Reverting may be justified, but that is not what is under discussion on this noticeboard. Whether or not reverting is justified, edit warring over such a revert is never justifiable except in very specific situations. This is not one of them. --Chris (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that. But this "prose" was mainly a complete fabrication. The reason is, the author of the text has no clue of what he is writing about. I offered him to support a well sourced and correct passage. [59] But he won't take it. I discuss this theme since June. But he won't assume not one of my annotations. So what can I do? Discuss this till next year? What makes you believe he will trust my notes next year? I've had a lot of such disputes. Mostly other users notice such a conflict and expain the point to my offenders. But it takes weeks of useless discussions. And CD seems to be really stubborn. After the "result" at DRN that no table is desirable, CD load up a picture of the Table now been listed for deletion. But I try to to bring CD to reason. Again if you want to? --WSC ^® 19:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

What shall I say to this kind of proceed --WSC ^® 19:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Widescreen just reverted an edit in the psychoanalysis article, the thing we agreed to in the dispute resolution. I don't see any doubt that he will stop doing so. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, and what I forgot to say, Widescreen is a notorious liar. What he refers to as "This second", claiming it was "canceled because of protests by other users" is a complete lie, and actually a gross one. The truth is that I withdrew the second petition because Widescreen promised to leave the wiki or at least take a a longer wiki vacation, and I assumed in good faith he was saying the truth. This was a bad mistake. Hardly had I withdrawn that petition, Widescreen withdrew his promise. His promise was just tactics. He is constantly violating WP:AGF, grossly abusing AGF other people give him, and distorting facts all the time just for tactical reasons. Never believe him even a word he says and instead check if it is really true. Be careful, he is a very good liar and what he says may seem plausible, and he is tricking a lot of people with his lies. I am very careful about calling people liars or relativizing AGF. But this is one special case where WP:AGF has its limits, since this user gives a sh*t about WP:AGF, abusing it as an instrument to make others do just what he wants. Give Widescreen an inch and he will take the circumference of the earth... So clearly the right dcision to block him.. --rtc (talk) 07:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Due to ongoing edit warring against consensus, Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. --Chris (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [60]

• 1st revert: [61] 13:07, 6 September 2012
• 2nd revert: [62] 16:14, 6 September 2012
• 3rd revert: [63] 16:38, 6 September 2012
• 4th revert: [64] 17:11, 6 September 2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [65] 6 September 2012 (edit)

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

Comments:

Note that the discussion thread was set up several days ago after the editor made the same changes and edit warred. The edit discussed in the thread] is essentially the same as the first three listed above. TFD (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how the third example given above constitutes a revert.... who was I reverting?

At any rate, I hope common sense prevails. It should be clear to admin that TFD is playing games here. There was no reason whatsoever for him to revert me when I simply deleted an erroneous, unsourced sentence - except to goad me into this revert game. He only ever went to the Talk page AFTER reverting. LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I've self-reverted to avoid this possible 3RR. But I would very much like to know if the third example given above constitutes a revert? LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Your self-reversion is a bit late. TFD is also correct that you have a history of edit-warring on this article in the last several days. The third example is a revert. Read the policy: " Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." Almost any change to the article, particularly in the midst of a war, constitutes a revert unless it's consecutive or exempt.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I am surprised that that constitutes a revert. Very well, if I have done the wrong thing according to the letter of the law, then I cannot complain about being sanction. But I would like to ask you - do you think TFD's conduct has been totally above board here? If you look at the history of the edits in a chronological order, you will see that every time he reverted, he had done so BEFORE using the talk page. If you look at the Talk page now, you will see that he still hasn't engaged. And then this apparently purposeless revert on the English Civil War + Cold War sentence - what was the point of that? Even his explanation on the Talk page, I don't understand (something about me trying to prove it is older or something, it doesn't seem to make sense). Do you not think he was, for want of a better phrase, "playing me"? LiamFitzGilbert (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, I don't think it's a bit late. How could I have done it any earlier? While editing I had no inkling whatsoever that I was in danger of breaching the 3RR rule. When you posted this link on my userpage, I was shocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiamFitzGilbert (talk • contribs) 18:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Shocked? You're not helping yourself. See what you call "obscene".--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Not blocked due to the self-revert, though it's certainly not long-term insurance. I'll also add that the users on the other side of this dispute are most certainly not immune from an edit warring block just because there's more of them reverting. Swarm ^X 07:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

for the record, i had a run in with this editor as well, yesterday, over the 1RR on the boycott, divestement and sanctions article. also, i noticed that he has erased from his talk page all previous mentions of his misconduct. and lastly, another editor wrote him today saying that he labeled an edit as minor when it wasn't. Swarm - can you get the message through to LiamFitzGilbert that all of these within two weeks add up to serious.... thanks. Soosim (talk) 08:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Page: Death of Asher and Yonatan Palmer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DePiep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [67]

• 1st revert: [68]
• 2nd revert: [69]
• 3rd revert: [diff]
• 4th revert: [diff]

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

Comments:
The article is under 1RR and part of WP:ARBPIA area.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. --Chris (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Wait a second. The 1RR warning was posted on his talk page four hours after his edits. Did this user have any way of knowing that he was in violation of a special edit restriction? A block for normal, civil edits - note that his objection has brought better sourcing in for the claim he contested - that are completely fine in other settings, but specially restricted on a particular article, seems arbitrary, harsh, unjustified, and a gross overreaction. I would encourage Chris to remove the block immediately and reexamine his (her?) knee-jerk imposition of punitive sanctions, specifically paying attention to the post times of edits and warnings. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 22:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The talk page of the article says, "Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence."--Bbb23 (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

So, you're saying that reading through the talk page is now required for editing, otherwise you are going to have nonsensical blocks imposed. Glad to know that things aren't arbitrary and capricious around here. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 23:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything. Arbcom said it. And tone down your rhetoric.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you claiming that it's not arbitrary and capricious to have a "warning" posted to your talk page, and then be blocked without having done anything else? I can't even imagine what you think a warning is if you think it is remotely appropriate to block someone when they've been given a warning and they haven't repeated the behavior. My rhetoric is completely cool, if sardonic, but there are serious problems with the conduct of the blocking admin in this case, and I've seen nothing to indicate that random blocks won't be wantonly imposed in the future. As someone who cares about this project, I find this to be a grave state of affairs. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 00:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Trust me, as one of the admins who regularly deals with this topic area, it's hard enough to keep a lid on things as is; if we let up at all, it'll descend into even more chaos than what already exists. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, the Arbcom case only says that people can be blocked on a first offense without warning, not that they should. That means that an admin has to actually look at a case and make a determination. As far as I'm concerned, if you can't tell the difference between someone who is honestly trying to work out an issue on an article and someone disrupting the project in order to advance a POV, you ought to resign your admin bit. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 04:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Page: Template:Infobox CPU (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Matthew Anthony Smith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [71]

• 1st revert: [72]
• 2nd revert: [73]
• 3rd revert: [74]
• 4th revert: [75]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [77]

Comments:
Technically not within 24h, but:

• "your just a prick... I will add every single bit of info you claim should be there but that page will use this new template"
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing#User:Matthew Anthony Smith
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Matthew Anthony Smith
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fantasy Game Productions/Archive
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 22#Template:PowerPC

—Ruud 23:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I'd suggest resolving this with a limited (e.g. two week) page protection on the affected template rather than an outright user block. This user has brushed me up the wrong way in the past but he is showing the first signs of active discussion and consensus building. It's far too late at night for me to start building on that now but the first signs are there. It seems appropriate to offer an olive branch at this point in the hope he may yet turn into a valued contributor as opposed to anything that may be construed as punitive in nature. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC).

• I'm seeing no clear evidence that the editor is listening. His latest revert at Template:Infobox CPU was at 23:30 on 6 September, which is only a few hours ago. Unless there is some evidence of a change of heart, a block may be needed to get his attention. I suggest waiting a bit longer before closing, to see if the editor will respond. EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

what would you like me to discuss? I have posted many replies to these claims here and this was the solution, we have made a sandbox comparison of how the improved template is actually improved and does not destroy content here Matthew Smith (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected for 2 weeks, as reasonably suggested by Crisp. Prior to this week the template hadn't been edited for a third of a year, so I don't think a couple weeks protection will do any harm, and I'm willing to cut this editor one break. Swarm ^X 07:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Page: Results of the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

1st User being reported: Ravensfire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2nd User being reported: Firstonthedraw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Results of the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries#Ron Paul status in this article

Comments:

Several days ago, starting with this edit, a string of editors has gone between marking the photo of Ron Paul as 'out' and unmarking him. Ron Paul and Mitt Romney were the only two candidates who were still running in the days leading up to the 2012 Republican National Convention. The article in question is the Results of the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries. According to our own Wikipedia article, "the 2012 Republican presidential primaries are the selection processes in which voters of the Republican Party are electing state delegations to the Republican National Convention. The national convention will then select their winning nominee to run for President of the United States in the 2012 presidential election."

I finally requested article protection for this article (diff) because people could not seem to come to an agreement on this. I started a discussion on the Talk page, and after less than 5 hours, no one seemed interested in any further debate. The article was protected for two days. I came in today, after almost 3 days had passed to go ahead and put in the more factual information (per the description listed on the definition I have quoted above) using a compromise version of the text that was proposed during the short Talk discussion. It was almost immediately reverted. I wrote another explanation via the edit summary and this was also immediately reverted.

I'm getting tired to trying to fight with these editors on this. We all know that Ron Paul is not in the race for president, but these editors seem intent on making sure Ron Paul is branded with a graphic to prove extra clearly that he was out, despite the fact that delegate contests and nominating procedures were still underway during the RNC itself, which comes *after* the primary process. Please assist in getting this resolved. They seem unwilling to accept both a simple edit where Mitt Romney and Ron Paul are shown as both being 'in', or the compromise text where we simply take 'out' off the photos of all the candidates, since the primaries and RNC are finished. -- Avanu (talk) 05:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, a single person getting reverted by multiple others. There concensus, but not the way Avanu wants. At this point, it's probably time for an RFC rather than Avanu's charged language and actions. Ravensfire (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't just me. You guys are willing to completely ignore the definition of a what a primary is and the information in our sources and simply want to make stuff up and continue to edit war. It only came to my attention after you guys reverted two other editors. So, we can begin an RfC, but I hardly see how this relates, since you are not basing your edit on an actual source. -- Avanu (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected for a period of 7 days by Ged UK (talk · contribs). --Chris (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Page: Kljajićevo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (only one example)

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

User:CrnoBelo mass removed images, reduces size of Greek Catholic, Romanian Orthodox, Catholic and Calvinist, in Vojvodina only leaves his Serbian Orthodox Church, I warned him not to do that on his talk page three times [78], [79], [80], he deleted all warnings.[81]

Examples

• [82], [83] catholic church is not good for infobox of orthodox village, by him (Wikipedia does not support discrimination and hate speech against minorities POV)
• [84], [85], [86]... not important images, by him
• [87] Reduce all images, not just one images. Map of the Bač municipality, Bođani Orthodox monastery not reduced only just reduced Catholic Church.
• [88]] [89] (If we have any image of the village, it should be in infobox User:WhiteWriter it is corrected him) remove pictures just Catholic churches, Orthodox Church leave and add in infobox [90], [91]
• [92], [93] removes images that do not like it .
• [94] three churches, Uniate, Catholic and Serbian Orthodox by two resizes not only Orthodox

User:WhiteWriter it is also corrected [95], [96], [97]...

Please stop this hate speech against minorities in Vojvodina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sokac121 (talk • contribs)

Comments:

This is funny. I am reported for revert warring by user who is involved in revert warring by himself and who has a history of disruptive behavior in Wikipedia: [98], [99], [100]. This user is obviously an Croatian nationalist who push POV in articles related to Serbia. I made some improvements in some articles about villages in Serbia and that included reduce of size of some images and move of images to other parts of articles. After Sokac121 (who declared himself to be a Roman Catholic) noticed that I reduced size of some images of Catholic churches he immediatelly engaged himself in Wiki stalking and reverted my edits in some 30-40 articles accusing me for "anti-minority behavior". Note that I reduced sizes of images mainly because of article aesthetics and I removed images of Catholic churches from infoboxes of articles about several villages in which members of Orthodox church are in majority. Infobox is kind of official representation of villages and image in infobox should represent majority of village inhabitants (and my objection to POV nature of some images in infobox is certainly not a "hate speech against minorities"). It is POV to push picture of church of one religion into infobox of article about village in which majority of people follow other religion. Note that I did not changed images in articles about villages in Serbia in which minorities are dominant population. I only changed images in articles about villages in Serbia with Serb majority and this have nothing to do with ethnic minorities. In the case of Sokac121, he obviously propagate his own religion in Wikipedia. CrnoBelo (talk) 14:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

How can I be a member of the Catholic, Romanian Orthodox, Calvinist and Greek Catholic churches? (SUL Sokac121, editcount : 21,014 no block, CrnoBelo editcount : 648 Who is nationalists?) You're changing all the pictures, except Serbian Orthodox Church Sokac121 add Serbian Orthodox Church. Here is the apparent discrimination of Hungarians, Germans, Romanians, Croats, Russians, Ukrainians and other minorities in Vojvodina. Majority nation should respect minority, minorities are by their culture, religion, folklore wealth of each country, except Serbia by CrnoBelo. Rremoval and continues today [101], [102] same as here [103] where restored by User:WhiteWriter ( No, this church is better representation of village then this poor map. It does not matter which church is that. It is in Putinci.) It's Vojvodina! :) --Sokac121 (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Both warned. This article is subject to WP:ARBMAC and Sokac121 has previously been warned and sanctioned under that decision. In this edit summary Sokac121 refers to his change of an image in the infobox as 'removal of hate speech.' Whether the village is majority Orthodox or Catholic is a simple matter of numbers and does not require any personal insults. If there is disagreement as to which church ought to be pictured in the infobox of these villages I recommend a WP:Request for comment. I urge CrnoBelo to wait for consensus before changing any more images and am leaving a warning for him under WP:ARBMAC. If warring about images continues, sanctions are possible. Both parties might ask User:WhiteWriter for suggestions since he is experienced and has worked on this article. EdJohnston (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Page: Neve Gordon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Barry goolam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neve_Gordon&diff=504123471&oldid=504123312 (last edit not from edit war)

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neve_Gordon&diff=511226550&oldid=511226260
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neve_Gordon&diff=next&oldid=511227067
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neve_Gordon&diff=next&oldid=511229555
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neve_Gordon&diff=next&oldid=511229942

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, as of yet. However an attempt to tell him to stop was most likely ignored.

Comments:

Yeknom Dnalsli (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. --Chris (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Page: Fong Sai-yuk (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 90.200.85.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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 and see talk page on article.

Comments:
This is an IP hopping user who continiously likes to add uncited material on action films and some wresting articles. He was just banned for 24 hours and has returned under a new IP. Help? Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: please also note this page. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours by Ponyo (talk · contribs). --Chris (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Note this is an edit-warring report, not a 3RR.

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

Previous version reverted to: [104]

• 1st revert 00:34, 6 August 2012
• 2nd revert 16:14, 6 August 2012
• 3rd revert 19:32, 12 August 2012
• 4th revert 17:28, 20 August 2012
• 5th revert 05:07, 22 August 2012
• 6th revert 05:08, 30 August 2012
• 7th revert 23:37, 31 August 2012
• 8th revert 13:04, 7 September 2012‎
• 9th revert 20:49, 7 September 2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [105]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See user's talk page User_talk:Botsystem and article talk page Talk:Yitzhak_Kaduri#.22Note.22_proposal, and we have tried to inform Botsystem of our policy concerns regarding his edits and invite him to discuss through edit summaries, for example:

• 21:34, 20 August 2012, edit summary "'Botsystem', pls explain rationale before reintroducing contentious edits"
• 10:51, 27 August 2012, edit summary "rmv WP:SOAP - material not directly pertinent to this biography, pls discuss"
• 19:07, 31 August 2012, edit summary "How about trying to discuss the issues, before summary warnings?"
• 07:29, 2 September 2012, edit summary "see talk"
• 18:47, 6 September 2012 edit summary "rm WP:OR/suggestion of WP:SYNTH"
• 14:29, 7 September 2012Zad68, edit summary "once again remove unsourced/WP:OR/suggestion of WP:SYNTH, invitations to talk about this have been made numerous times, Botsystem given final edit-warring warning"

but no engagement.

Comments:
Botsystem has been slow edit-warring in unsourced content into a biography, some WP:OR suggesting WP:SYNTH.

Zad68 20:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I have not violated 3RR, the edits made my myself and another user Cpsoper. Cpsoper's edits were POV based. And the so called "edit war" stopped when he/she took out the POV from the article. In fact the current state of the article and my last revert was to the last edit made by Cpsoper. I thought the issue was solved. Botsystem (talk)

• Result: Page protected one week. Please use this time to find consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Page: Ted L. Nancy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mtamony (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [106]

• 1st revert: [107]
• 2nd revert: [108]
• 3rd revert: [109]
• 4th revert: [110]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [User talk:Mtamony#Ted L. Nancy] and [User talk:Mtamony#3RR]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [Talk:Ted L. Nancy#Mtamony edits]

Comments:
Ted L. Nancy is a pseudonym used by comedian Barry Marder. With WP:N in mind, I initially made the Nancy page a redirect to Marder, later setting up a disambiguation page. Over the past few days, User:Mtamony has objected to my edits, citing connections to the Ted L. Nancy "trademark holder" and legal representation. He has stated:

• "The legal trademark holder for Ted L Nancy has asked for the changes" (Talk:Ted L. Nancy)
• "I will continue to correctly edit this wikipedia page under the direction of Ted L. Nancy legal representation" (Talk:Ted L. Nancy)
• "I am editing the page with facts provided by the representatives of the Ted L Nancy trademark" (Talk:Ted L. Nancy)
• "I am being directed by the legal representative of the Ted L Nancy trademark on what the Ted L Nancy Wikipedia should say." (User talk:Mtamony)

Etc. I tagged the article with a Conflict of Interest tag, supported by User:Jim1138. On the article's talk page, User:Kudpung has also supported a redirect or a merger. I hope User:Mtamony can take some more moments to re-read Wikipedia policies on content on conflict of interest before continuing to edit and monitor the Ted L. Nancy page. I also may take this to WP:COIN based on your recommendations. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments:
The author Barry Marder and his legal representative asked me to correct the Ted L. Nancy page after User:Wikipedical deleted it and redirected to Barry Marder's page. He then deleted all that information off of Barry Marder's page calling it "cruf". I reverted it back to what it was to give us time to get the content corrected. Barry was being featured on a new Jerry Seinfeld show the next night. Wikipedical decided to revert it back a couple of times, then simply put up a redirect to Barry Marder and another author who claims he worked on two books. I asked Wikipedical for time to provide corrected content and he refused by reverting the site again.

Ted L. Nancy is absolutely notable as required by WP:N. To suggest the character of six books is not is ludicrous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtamony (talk • contribs) 03:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I spent a bunch of time editing the page and providing citations for anything mentioned. I also added in (Talk:Ted L. Nancy) to please explain what of what I added was biased and a conflict of interest.

I also added in (Talk:Ted L. Nancy) that the character is a fictional entity. Huckleberry Finn has a Wikipedia page, Winnie-The-Pooh has a Wikipedia page. Why can't Ted L Nancy have a Wikipedia page? How can it be changed yet still exist in a way that satisfies Wikipedia?

Next he stuck a COI banner on top of the page which I removed. He then brought in User:Jim1138 to add the COI banner again. I also removed this. I didn't add bias, I added references with citations.

This editor has a hidden agenda which is apparent since all these edits happened the night before Barry Marder was to air on the new Seinfeld show. Wikpedical is using Wikipedia rules to try and enforce an agenda. As the author of Ted L Nancy said, "Doesn't Wikipedia care about the truth?" That is sad.

I hope you review what actually happened with these two pages, but go ahead and block me. I hope it provides Wikipedical some sort of satisfaction that their ego seems to crave.

--Mtamony (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked 24 hours for 3RR violation and disruptive editing. User:Mtamony has been warring to remove the COI tag from the article. The block may be lifted if Mtamony will agree to accept consensus regarding the future of this article and to cease warring about article tags. Other editors who don't think this article is notable might consider nominating it for deletion. In my personal opinion the article is harmless, and much of the content has been on Wikipedia since 2005. Of course the lawyers for the author only have the role of plain Wikipedia editors so far as the content of the article is concerned. Their participation is welcome if they will follow our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 06:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Page: Kingdom Hearts Birth by Sleep (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DisneyGirlovestacos95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [111]

• 1st revert: [112]
• 2nd revert: [113]
• 3rd revert: [114]
• 4th revert: [115]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [116]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [117]

Comments:

The user has been edit warring despite being told to stop and also left an insult on the talk page in the ongoing discussion. What is the best possible solution to resolve this matter? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I tried talking with the user on the talk page too but my comment was deleted. The same happened with the other notices of edit warring.Tintor2 (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry i deleted your bulletin I just got afraid and nervous but now I'm bringing it back, happy.DisneyGirlovestacos95 (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

And I'm also Very very very sorry I insulted Lord Sjones23 I just wanted to just highlight the words in bold because they would have an intresting effect, but evidently I started to lose my cool which I was unable to stop all with just a single minor edit by someone, please I'm sorry I false accused him, I'm sorry I reverted the edits I just don't want to be blocked and be considered a bully please. DisneyGirlovestacos95 (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Warned I've left DisneyGirlovestacos95 a final warning about edit warring. Given the apologies made here and a personal apology at Sjones23's user talk page I don't think we need a preventive block in this case. De728631 (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Page: Ford Excursion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 04:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

• 21:08, 3 September 2012 (edit summary: "Added a link to a Ford conversion company")

1. 22:50, 3 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 510670772 by Jim1138 (talk)")

2. 00:34, 4 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 510679422 by CZmarlin (talk)")

3. 20:43, 4 September 2012 (edit summary: "")

4. 05:29, 5 September 2012 (edit summary: "")

5. 12:36, 5 September 2012 (edit summary: "")

6. 14:04, 5 September 2012 (edit summary: "")

7. 14:52, 5 September 2012 (edit summary: "")

(1st revert) 8. 16:48, 7 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 511232721 by CZmarlin (talk)")

(2nd revert) 9. 17:16, 7 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 511246568 by 76.102.49.177 (talk)")

(3rd revert - part) 10a. 18:42, 7 September 2012 (edit summary: "")

(3rd revert - part) 10b. 18:43, 7 September 2012 (edit summary: "")

(3rd revert - part) 10c. 18:44, 7 September 2012 (edit summary: "")

(3rd revert - part) 10d. 18:45, 7 September 2012 (edit summary: "")

(4th revert) 11. 18:58, 7 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 511261891 by 76.102.49.177 (talk)")

• Diff of warning: here —CZmarlin (talk) 04:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• Explanations why spam links are not to be added to this WP article have been provided several times on the contributor's talk page.
• The addition of spam and the aftermarket conversion company to the Ford Expedition article has been the only contributions by this user.

CZmarlin (talk) 04:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of indefinite for persistent spamming. De728631 (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Page: Baltimore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.204.126.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [118]

• 1st revert: [119]
• 2nd revert: [120]
• 3rd revert: [121]
• 4th revert: [122]
• 5th revert: [123]
• 6th revert: [124]
• 7th revert: [125]
• 8th revert: [126]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning #1: [127]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning #2: [128]

Comments:This IP user seems to do nothing but continuously change unsourced information. Reverts have been made by two other editors in addition to myself. Warnings on the talk page are left without response. IP address doesn't seem to be used for anything other than disruptive edits. Thanks, epicAdam^(talk) 19:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• blocked for a period of 31h. Black Kite (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Page: Tanya Stephens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Eminem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Djjazzyb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User was edit warring on the Eminem article, repeatedly adding a logo where a text name should be:

• 1: [129]

This was removed in line with infobox guidelines, followed by several reverts by User:Djjazzyb:

• 1st revert: [130]
• 2nd revert: [131]
• 3rd revert: [132]
• 4th revert: [133]

• This was followed by edit-warring on the Tanya Stephens article:
• Initial edit changing surname to Stephenson: [134]
• 1st revert: [135]
• 2nd revert: [136]
• 3rd revert: [137]
• 4th revert: [138]

• User: Gimmetoo explained why the use of the logo was inappropriate: [139]
• User: Djjazzyb continued to revert and was warned for edit-warring

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning for edit warring on the Eminem article

• He then proceeded to edit-war on the Tanya Stephens article.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Several attempts have been made to reason with this edoitor and explain what they are doing wrong: [140], [141], [142], [143]

Comments:

In the past couple of days I have also had to revert edits by this user such as removal of project tags from an article talk page, changing the name in an infobox against established consensus on the talk page, and removal of an AfD notice while the discussion was still open. --Michig (talk) 22:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

How about this: both of you stop reverting each other and discuss these changes. Michig, you have been just as active a participant in these edit wars as Djjazzyb has. Based on the history of Tanya Stephens, you could both easily be blocked for edit warring. --Chris (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You should probably acquaint yourself with our policy on biographies of living people - the Tanya Stephens article is a BLP and the removal of reliably sourced information and its replacement with unsourced and poorly sourced information is not something for debate. In the Eminem article I reverted once in line with the guidelines for the template, so how am I edit-warring on that article exactly? --Michig (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, 1st, Tanya Stephens' real name is Stephenson, I have provided numerous references, checked the inlays for her CDs, hell I talked to her personally through facebook, it cannot be disputed. 2nd, The Eminem logo, how come you're not having a go at User:fijipeace? After he did the same to the Game (rapper) article, that made me want to do it to some articles to. That said, I have already resolved this matter with User:Walter Görlitz on the Skillet (band) page. So, honestly is there any real problem here? Or are you just finding flaws with nothing at all? That's all I've got to say on the matter for now. I'm out. K. (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Michig, BLP tends to focus more on contentious material, especially negative or controversial. While Djjazzyb's version of the article was not very well sourced, I have a very hard time believing that all of the added material was contentious. It certainly did not warrant a war between his edits and the stub. Effort would have been better spent helping look for better sources. --Chris (talk) 04:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

user:Djjazzyb has other problems here.[144] Kerfuffler (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I blocked Djjazzyb because they clearly exceeded 3RR. However, I think there are some competency issues that need to be addressed as well. Michig, your one comment on the article talk page was helpful, but I think more could have been done to educate Djjazzyb. I understand it might not have been successful, but it would have been good to try. Perhaps you can tackle that after the block expires or even leave a note on the editor's talk page during the block.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I must say that Djjazzyb's initial reaction to the block doesn't bode well for the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Nor his second.[145] Kerfuffler (talk) 01:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I suppose I'm the only person to get pissed off and go reckless, right? K. (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Page: United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FurrySings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [146]

• 1st revert: [147]
• 2nd revert: [148]
• 3rd revert: [149]
• 4th revert: [150]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [151]

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

Comments:

User:FurrySings has tried to WP:CENSOR United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012 by removing well-cited material that is unfavorable to Elizabeth Warren without a consensus. The user has stated on the article's talk page that he/she will continue to remove this material without a consensus, even though he/she has not proven that this material violates any policy. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 07:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• No violation Stale (and no violation even then), no notification of this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Page: Joan Juliet Buck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 89.133.214.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [153]

• 1st revert: [154]
• 2nd revert: [155]
• 3rd revert: [156]
• 4th revert: [157]
• 5th revert: [158]
• 6th revert: [159]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [161] (personalized comment on the IP's talk page)

Comments: I'm involved. The article has a checkered history replete with BLP issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Added the 5th revert. The IP is decidely past the bright line, and had been quite properly warned as well. His edit summary of Please I have been following this with great interest and you are wrong seems to adequately show the problem. Other addresses likely include 91.50.184.173 and 77.241.200.126 as making congruent edits. Seems to be European - and likely a person who travels in Eastern Europe a bit. Collect (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Added the 6th revert. I seriously doubt that this is a close call at all. Collect (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Clear reverts at 14:18, 14:58, 20:38 and 20:48 at a minimum. Clear warning given at 17:57.Kuru (talk) 21:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Page: Cognitive behavioral therapy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Widescreen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: diff
• 2nd revert: diff
• 3rd revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:
Immediately after being blocked for the same exact reason, Widescreen has continued edit waring against the consensus without abiding by WP:BRD. All the issues were agreed to in dispute resolution and by the editors on the page, Widescreen continues to assert they weren't and continues edit warring without discussing it. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This case is also beein discussed here. I don't know what to do after CartoonDiablo denial to answer my arguments? [162] [163] [164] [165]. Now it goes about a POV-Button. Is CD allowed to do everything?

In fact CDs editing is highley POV and obviously wrong. His only argument is to hide behind Weasel Words and 3RR. Thats insolent and not only by CD! Did it goes about 3RR or well sourced and correct informations? I as author of 3 featured articles in german WP have never seen such a proceed is successful. But in this case it seems so. No discussion but still get supported so he can continue with the proceed. --WSC ^® 23:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You reverted again!!![166] Enough of this. I'm usually opposed to blocks, but not in this case. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Just tell me why you are agains a simple POV-Button? Your only argument is the editwar and it needs 2 useres at the minimum to have an editwar. This hyding after 3rr in this case not violated or WAR, by refusal a discussion AND a POV-Button is the worst violation of the five pillars I have ever seen in WP. And I'm an author since 8 Years. en:wp seems to be a "snitchpedia". --WSC ^® 00:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Because there is no POV dispute, that was solved and your problems were explained in it weeks ago. We have both repeatedly told you that even prior to you being banned. The only person who thinks there is a POV dispute is you. But aside from that, you continue to edit war without abiding by WP:BRD and discussing the issue. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

How many users did it take to have an POV dispute? Futher, you continue to edit war too. At the last time it was me, rooky violating the 3rr. Luck of the draw. You just spread allegations. Do you think the Admins arn't abele to read and proof the tings your false pretences? --WSC ^® 04:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The question isn't how many, it's the fact that you edit war without abiding by WP:BRD and don't do the actual process for appealing a dispute resolution consensus. I don't know how many times me and Still-standing reverted but you are continuing to revert after being banned for it. CartoonDiablo (talk) 05:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 week for long-term edit warring about cognitive behavioral therapy and psychoanalysis. It was clarified by the last blocking admin here that WSC's last block was for warring which included a 3RR violation at Cognitive behavioral therapy. Two admins (Bagumba and Swarm) reviewed the last block and declined to lift it. Amazingly, this dispute has already been through WP:DRN which came up with a result, which WSC still won't accept. (He is concerned about the relative effectiveness of psychoanalysis and cognitive behavioral therapy. He continues to add POV tags at both articles. As he said at Talk:Cognitive behavioral therapy#POV-Warning on August 30, "I insist, to set one of these POV-warning boxes into the article, till these table is erased.") WSC's block log on the German Wikipedia is here. In November 2011 he was blocked for six months on de:wp. EdJohnston (talk) 05:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Page: Ford Excursion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 65.15.191.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 03:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1st revert = 01:11, 10 September 2012 (edit summary: "")

2nd revert = 01:41, 10 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 511621155 by CZmarlin (talk)")

3rd revert = 02:38, 10 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 511625738 by CZmarlin (talk)")

• Diff of warning: here

Comments:

• These are the identical edits involving the addition of promotion for an aftermarket conversion company and a spam link to it, as done by Martin Blaney. The result was that the user was blocked yesterday: here
• The same edits were also performed today and yesterday under the following user names: 174.146.45.181 (once), 174.146.122.245 (twice), 184.234.155.140 (once), 70.233.132.43 (once) - most likely meaning that this is sockpuppetry.
• Thank you —CZmarlin (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Updates (note: copied as they appear in my "local" time):

4th revert = Revision as of 23:35, September 9, 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 511634011 by Jim1138 ")

5th revert = Revision as of 23:40, September 9, 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 511634011 by Jim1138 ")

• CZmarlin (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

More updates (with my local time)

6th revert = Revision as of 23:50, September 9, 2012 (edit summary: "(Undid revision 511635332 by Jim1138")

7th revert = Revision as of 23:54, September 9, 2012 (edit summary: "(Undid revision 511636248 by Jprg1966")

• Once again, all the edits keep adding the same promotion for "a conversion company (Custom Autos by Tim) in Guthrie, Oklahoma" and the spam EL. CZmarlin (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• It's easier and quicker to use WP:AIV for such cases. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Page: Dangerous World Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lassoboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Following a recent altercation, the article is presently identical to the version dated 12:53, 6 September 2012.

• 1st revert: 17:07, 8 September 2012.
• 2nd revert: 17:08, 8 September 2012.
• 3rd revert: 17:08, 8 September 2012.
• 4th revert: 21:48, 8 September 2012.
• 5th revert: 21:48, 8 September 2012.
• 6th revert: 10:54, 9 September 2012.
• 7th revert: 10:54, 9 September 2012.

Within the last few hours, I issued warnings to J.P.Rallizgard and Lassoboy regarding the continuation of the dispute and the possibility of preventative blocks.

Previous entries at Talk:Dangerous World Tour and User talk:J.P.Rallizgard suggest that Lassoboy did not attempt to resolve the dispute with their counterpart directly prior to reporting at WP:ANI, and demonstrate Lassoboy's presumption of ownership of specific articles, including Dangerous World Tour. Whatever the individual faults of a contributor, I don't believe that anything merits this sort of incivility: 'If you are going to fuck up these articles again, I will write to the moderators and ask them to block you from Wikipedia', which establishes the antagonistic nature of the numerous full and partial reversions in the subsequent months.

Comments:

After the initial report of edit warring at WP:ANI, I determined that the involvement of Lassoboy and J.P.Rallizgard in the dispute is recent and merits intervention. Their previous encounters suggest a long-standing pattern of reversion and edit warring, especially where Lassoboy infringed the WP:3RR on multiple occasions during August. Mephistophelian (talk) 11:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC).

I am sorry for being so tyrant, but it was at the time necessary, because this user violated this article in my eyes. There have been numerous other edits from other users, but I have agreed with these, because these were constructive edits. So, in overall, I think I have been fair in editing this article. And it was completely impossible to communicate with this user. He/She has never answered to my letters. Period. Lassoboy (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I herein admit that I am not the author of this article and not the guard of this article. I am just an editor, who next time will try to be a little bit more polite in my actions. And I hope that J.P.Rallizgard will not do no more unnecessary, meaningless and pointless edits in the future. Lassoboy (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• No violation; the first three diffs are consecutive, so count as one revert. Same with the last two. The two in the middle also are, but they are from the other editor in the dispute and so wouldn't count for this report anyway. Note to the parties: Do be careful. No blocks are called for now, but continuing this way could result in blocks. Please talk it out and pursue dispute resolution as needed. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Page: Ayn Rand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.83.5.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Not applicable. Constantly fluctuates due to edit-warring.

• 1st revert: [167]
• 2nd revert: [168]
• 3rd revert: [169]
• 4th revert: [170]
• 5th revert: [171]
• 6th revert: [172]
• 7th revert: [173]
• 8th revert: [174]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [175]

Comments:
Ceaseless edit-warring across multiple articles connected with Rand. IP will not discuss or take no for an answer. Personal attacks as well against other editors. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Concur, multiple examples of disruptive behaviour, aggressive comments and edit summaries, refusal to use the talk page etc. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

To be precise, the IP editor has engaged in discussion on user talk pages. Unfortunately, the "discussion" consists entirely of variations on the IP editor saying, "I'm right so stop your abusive removal of my changes", accompanied by another revert. See the IP's talk page, or here, or here, or here. --RL0919 (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Some new meaning of "discussion" I assume ?  :-) ----Snowded ^TALK 04:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked per the textbook on edit warring. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you Drmies. Pc1985 (talk · contribs) is a sock of the IP and is currently evading the IP block. Reported at AIV but it wouldn't hurt to mention it here as well. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Looks like Materialscientist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked. Tiptoety ^talk 06:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Page: Esh Kodesh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Israeli settlement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Z554 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 67.6.119.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Esh Kodesh and Israeli settlement

For Esh Kodesh (note that the page is under 1RR per ARBCOM Arab-Israeli conflict)

• 1st revert: [176]
• 2nd revert: [177]
• 3rd revert: [178] (this one is by the IP; same edit summary, though)

Israeli settlement (also under 1RR):

• 1st revert: [179]
• 2nd revert: [180]
• 3rd revert: [181] by the IP, same edit summary as above

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [183] (last of a series of warnings to Z554) and [184] warning to IP.

Comments: I think it's clear enough that the IP is involved that I'm including it in the report. Note especially use of all CAPS in edit summaries and the fact that the only two articles the IP has edited are the ones that Z554 was edit warring over earlier. I forgot to mention that for good measure, there's canvassing: [185]
— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 07:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Even without the IP edits, the 1RR vio is clear, so 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Page: Ahmad Shah Massoud (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Future Perfect at Sunrise (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [191]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [192]

Comments:

This report seems malformed. The fourth claimed revert is a revert by Darkness Shines not by FPAS. Mathsci (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I am in a bit of pain. Fixed. Facts, not fiction (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In addition Darkness Shines seems to have been tag teaming with JCAla. Mathsci (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The 4th revert is well outside 24 hours, pain or otherwise. What is the point of reports like this? Mathsci (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Er,. the fact that he is edit warring? And refuses point blank to discuss. Facts, not fiction (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

And I would not call 53 minutes "well outside2 And do not make accusations of tag teaming. Facts, not fiction (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

He is not edit warring. It is your editing and that of JCAla that seems to be the problem here, although I have not looked at the content issue. Please watch out for WP:BOOMERANG. The first edit was made at 9:13 (am) on 10 September; the 4th was made at 18:53 (pm) on 11 September. Not so hard to see far more than 24 hours between those edits, is it? Mathsci (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Look at the time of the last revert. it is 53 minutes from the last revert to the fourth. That is most certainly edit warring. You blithely say my editing is the problem, yet have not looked at the content dispute. Way to go. Shall I go and revert him then? Then I can get blocked for edit warring, after all I am just a pleb here not a super special admin. Facts, not fiction (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The 3RR rule is "no more than 3 reverts within the space of 24 hours". Mathsci (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see vandalism or BLP violations so FutPerf needs to hit the talk page, where there is a decided lack of discussion going on except a single comment by Darkness Shines/F,nf. Summaries are pretty aggressive, but not over the line. I don't see a need for action at this given time, but had I independently stumbled across the article, I would be tempted to full protect it for a few days and force it onto the talk page, and may yet if it continues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, he has refused to discuss[193] just wants people banned. Facts, not fiction (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk page has been tried; it's hopeless. Trying to talk to JCAla is like talking against a brick wall. I utterly lost patience with him several months ago (and, by extension, with D.S.), so no, I am no longer available for any kind of dispute resolution that involves me having to pretend conducting a rational discussion with these people. Other forms of dispute resolution have failed too, because JCAla has always managed to deflect any outside involvement through the sheer size of his "didnthearthat" rants (the well-known WP:SOUP approach). JCAla is a hardened, single-minded and extremely obstinate agenda warrior, and trying to negotiate neutrality with him is simply not possible. This is the kind of situation where the Wikipedia model of dispute resolution simply fails, radically, and the only solution will be when these two editors will finally get their long-deserved topic bans. Sorry if it's not politically correct to say it like this, but this is the way it is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll save you the speech because you've given it more than I have. I still think blocking would be overkill and inappropriate here (it's no secret I'm not a fan of 4RR blocks where the participants are talking) but, well, you know. You can't revert like that. I'm left with not much else you don't already know: take it to the talk page, take it to DRN or MedCab, all things you also tell others but don't think will work. What else would you propose? There aren't a lot of options here, and you know what they are. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

As I said, the only rational solution here is to ban the agenda warriors. Anybody with half a brain can see that JCAla's editing on this article has been a persistent, brazen-faced, unrestrained POV campaign; anybody with half a brain who looks at the talk page archives can see that rational discourse with him is impossible. This is blockable, and the situation will persist until some administrator finally does what is needed. Yes, please, spare yourself the admin preaching about dispute resolution; it won't work. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• This is a clear-cut content issue in which Fut.Perf. refuses to discuss or build consensus. He is more than clearly edit warring, and I am more than interested to see if people are treated according to the same standards here. Fut.Perf. has been hounding people after disagreements in content disputes. With me it started after an image deletion discussion before which we had never met. Ever since that image deletion discussion, Fut.Perf. has been issuing personal attacks and shown hounding behavior. In that first and initial dispute with him at the image deletion discussion, he was noted by the closing admin for: "S/he [Fut.Perf.] must not confuse arguments that are truly invalid with arguments that s/he merely disagrees with."[194] That really captures the main problem here. Ever since Darkness Shines came into contact with Fut.Perf. on the opposing side of an argument, the same happened to him. When DS got a DYK promoted by several established editors reviewing it, Fut.Perf. immediately discredited it including all those that had reviewed it.[195][196] Now we got that 4RR accompanied by an utter failure to discuss and again disrespectful comments directed towards established editors for disagreement over content. JCAla (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• FutPerf, I have looked at the article talk page, from your first post [197] to your last [198], as well as JCAla's contribs. You obviously don't like each other. JC, it isn't as clear cut as you make it, no matter how much you protest. Let me be blunt: I'm worried about Fut.Perf's expressed desire to not work with you, but only as much as I am with some of your tactics that look more like obstructionist wikilawyering than consensus building, with DS along for the ride. Limiting myself to observations on the talk page of this article, none of you are shining examples of collegiate cooperation here. Fut.Perf has tried to work the issues out, including starting a discussion at DRN [199] but both you said your peace and left, and wouldn't address each other. At this point, you need some outside opinions in the matter, and a willingness to accept the consensus of such. An RfC would be one method. Again, there are only so many options here, and I'm interested only in solutions. Drag each other to ANI, RFC/U, start an RfC on the content, ArbCom, whatever, but edit warring, either by individuals or a team of two is not acceptable, previous sanctions or admin bits aside. If you want to consider the long term editing habits of each other, open an RFC/U. Limiting myself to the purpose of this venue, I don't see a need for action, and I can only hope my guidance isn't falling on deaf ears. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Outside opinion? Oh yes, great, please, get us some. RfCs have been tried too. But where do you think that outside opinion is going to come from? Who do you expect is going to read through all that crap on the talkpage in order to even just understand what the dispute is about, let alone formulate a reasoned opinion about it? Have you any idea how many decent contributors we have who have an ongoing interest and a positive track record in this kind of topic domain (internal Afghan politics and history)? I can tell you the answer: it is precisely zero. The only other editors who have ever shown an interest in this article have themselves been no less disruptive agenda warriors than the present set. As for native Afghan editors who might have an editing interest in this field, as far as I'm aware, we don't currently have a single one who is not already indef-banned, or deserves to be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Again, I really do understand your frustration. I hesitated before jumping in here because it is a difficult to understand and contentious area, but what is the solution? In all sincerity, what am I to do? Ignore it? Block all of you for a combination of warring and tag team warring? Pick a side and just block one or two of you? I'm trying to offer some way forward but it appears my ideas are all bad ones. You know we don't ban anyone at ANEW, so you tell me, how do we move forward? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:36, 11 September 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. Although 3RR blocks are entirely permitted in "almost" violations where there's 4 reverts in just outside 24 hours (as Darkness Shines has suggested), this is not the case. The 3RR window began at 7:13 September 10 and ended 7:13 September 11. Although there were three reverts in that period, the fourth revert wasn't until 16:53 September 11. You're all experienced users who should know how appropriately work to resolve disputes. Fut.Per., if traditional dispute resolution methods won't work due to a POV-pushing agenda, you have RfC/U and AN/I. JCAla, if this admin is hounding users he doesn't agree with, you have RfC/U and AN. If you can both assume good faith for two seconds, you should already be aware of the normal dispute resolution forums. But spare us the "DR won't work because blah blah blah" routine. You're all experienced enough to know that there is no justification for edit warring—even if you're right. Neither Dennis nor I see the need for admin intervention at this time, but it gets harder not to block when edit warring continues after AN3 has let you off the hook. Swarm ^X 00:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Page: Occupation of Smyrna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: E4024 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [200]

• 1st revert: [201]
• 2nd revert: [202]
• 3rd revert: [203]
• 4th revert: [204]
• 5th revert: [205]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [206]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [207]

Comments:
It started when I added the a link of the relevant peace treaty to the lead of the article. E4024, removed it immediately (1st and 2nd rv), although it was sourced. As a compromise I've added the same information not in the lead but in the main text, but in vain (3rd rv). During the following hours, while I initiated a discussion in the talk page, E4024 performed the 4rth rv (partially reverted a recent addition in another section) and then a 5th rv (again partial revert of a recent addition I've made). In general E4024 displays an aggresive behavior, by reverting (entirely or partially) imediattely any kind of addition made in the article in a variety of sections (typical wp:own). For example a proposal I've made in the discussion [[208]] was answered by this [[209]].

Although he appears to 'battle' alone against various users, ([[210]] being advised by another user to reconsider) for an unknown reasons he insist that my edits appear to be vandalim [[211]].

E4024, displayed battleground acitivity in the past too [[212]], but it appears, as noted, that he isn't making progress.Alexikoua (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I am really surprised by this. My many contributions and other interactions show that I am only trying to contribute to the improving of WP. Recalling a case from my very first days in WP is not relevant. In the present claim, the accuser shows that he is not aware of the difference between "edits" and "reverts". I have even corrected his/her spelling mistakes and that edit of mine has been added to my "list of reverts" by the said party. Anybody that will read the discussion page of the relevant article will see that I have been trying to help the user to understand the procedure of international treaty making (the main point of difference between us) but all my efforts were in vain. (His/her attitude may be qualified as "I am not hearing you.") Best regards to all. --E4024 (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing a lot of evidence that this is sanctionable edit warring, rather, it looks like a lot of unrelated content removals. While I'll grant that the 3RR doesn't require all reverts to be the same, I just don't see a case this being edit warring worth sanctioning. Will leave this up in case any other admins want to give a second opinion. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry? A partial revert is still a revert. According to the definition of 3rr: "whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert" so, we have clearly a 3rr in this case (5 rvs in less than 12h). Morevoer, there is still extreme wp:own activity and disruption as E4024 insist to invite other user to his "short history lessons and lectures".Alexikoua (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. E4024's comment about a spelling error involves the 5th revert and, in addition, they changed other material at the same time as they corrected the spelling. At the same time, the reporter has also made more than 3 reverts. More important, the battle continues between the two editors as recently as a few hours ago.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• E4024 has asked me to file a dispute resolution in their name (for lack of coding skills in the DR input page) [213], which I have declined as of now. From what I could extract from the wall of text on the article talk, there seem to be disputes about a whole lot of issues so I recommended an RFC instead where it's desired. De728631 (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Page: Joseph Berrios (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 18:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 16:54, 10 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 511713781 by 68.250.73.249 (talk) restore deletion of neutral, verifiable, reliable, referenced content; undo section blanking; restore numerous refs")
2. 17:00, 10 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 511714841 by 68.250.73.249 (talk) undo disruptive edit, vandalism")
3. 17:06, 10 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 511715812 by 68.250.73.249 (talk) vandalism")
4. 17:13, 10 September 2012 (edit summary: "Reverted 4 edits by 68.250.73.249 (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by HughD. (TW)")
5. 17:22, 10 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 511717705 by 68.250.73.249 (talk) undo vandalism")
6. 17:35, 10 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 511718251 by 68.250.73.249 (talk) undo vandalism")
7. 17:42, 10 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 511720174 by 68.250.73.249 (talk) undo blatant vandalism")
8. 18:25, 10 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 511720819 by 68.250.73.249 (talk) undo vandalism")
9. 22:09, 10 September 2012 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Orlady (talk): Move pov to talk page. (TW)")
10. 22:11, 10 September 2012 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 511726673 by HughD: prep for povdiscussion on talk page. (TW)")
11. 22:12, 10 September 2012 (edit summary: "")
12. 22:49, 10 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Chairman, Democratic Party of Cook County, 2007– */ heading format")
13. 22:50, 10 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* 31st ward Democratic committeeman, 1987–1988, 1992– */ section heading format date range")
14. 14:43, 11 September 2012 (edit summary: "WP:MOS notability in intro, summary of article contents in intro")
15. 14:49, 11 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Commissioner on Cook County Board of Review, 1988–2010 */ restore neutral, verifiable, reliable, referenced content related to record of hiring relatives while commissioner and defense of same, including direct quote(s) from subject")
16. 14:58, 11 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Commissioner on Cook County Board of Review, 1988–2010 */ restore notable, neutral, verifiable content from referenced reliable sources")
17. 15:09, 11 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Election */ let facts speak for themselves, restore detail, restore quotes, tweak subsection heading")
18. 15:19, 11 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Illinois State Representative */ restore detail of creation of two Hispanic state legislative districts")
19. 15:28, 11 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Early life and education */ add significant detail of ancestry from relaible source, already referenced")
20. 16:18, 11 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Hiring and promoting relatives and friends as Assessor */ add board president statement and reference to neutral, verifiable, reliabel source")

• Diff of warning: here

• Comment. Editor appears to be at approximately 12RR in 36 hours, despite a warning on his talk page (linked above) at about 9RR, and appears to have no intention of stopping. (I've tried to remove the less relevant edits from the above list, but the original was very long indeed.) The IP against whom he was mostly edit-warring, has already been blocked. The IP in question was removing content apparently based on a belief (right or wrong) that it infringed BLP. Under sporadic discussion at the article's talk page and WP:BLPN. I have not edited the article.

—--Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Note The IP was doing major whitewashing of the article, removing well sourced but negative material. I think the "BLP violation" by the IP is overstated a bit, as the edits show more a desire to cleanse the article rather than trim specific points. I would hate to see HughD blocked for what amounts to protecting the integrity of the article, even if he was doing it in the worst possible way. Even ClueBot reverted the IP on these cuts, showing how drastic the changes were. While this is clearly beyond any reasonable amount of reverts you would expect, the BLPN shows the contentiousness of the situation, as well as the obvious bias of the IP warrior. In a perfect world, HughD would come here and explain that he understands he was way over the line, and reassure it won't happen again. His motives may be good but we still can't tolerate that kind of behavior, even if he is right. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

  Hello. I was attempting to protect the integrity of the article. I requested the IP block but continued warring while waiting for the block to take effect, I recognize I should have waited for the block to take effect. Sorry. Hugh (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

  WRT WP:BLPEDIT the subject of the article is a Cook County politician and the IP maps to their HQ building during regular hours. I seriously doubt the IP was the subject himself but I suspect a surrogate WP:COI, in any case no excuse for my warring. Hugh (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

  Dennis, just one simple question. Was the material that the IP removed (and that HughD repeatedly reverted back into the article), "all OK" from a WP:BLP perspective? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

  That is what WP:BLPN is for. All I can do when looking at a dispute, personally, is look at the motivations and intent. It is certainly contentious material, but it appears to be well sourced. Arguably, the controversy and negative material is what makes the subject notable. He isn't an elected official, after all. My concern isn't about what should or shouldn't be in the article, it is finding a solution that will stop warring so actual discussion can take place, and so review and a consensus can take place. Often, a block is the right answer, but in this case I think it would be counter productive and make the situation worse, rather than better. HughD has been here for years without a block, so warring doesn't appear to be a habit. Since I have no interest in justice, and only in solutions, I'm very tempted to just full protect for a while. Keep in mind, I don't normally work AN3 and will admit an ignorance as to the typical response by admins here, all I can do is use my best judgement in a given situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

  thanks. BTW the subject of the article IS an elected official. Hugh (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment -- WP:BLPEDIT may apply here. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Meh, it might apply to the IP, who was blocked and it has expired. The IP is an official Cook County IP, so someone is doing this at work for the county/city government. This is another situation where I'm inclined to thing full article protection and a force to the talk page is more effective than a series of blocks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• Note, the article has had peer review [214], and a look at the contribs makes it appear User:Kqcassidy may be related. Again, none of this changes the bad judgement by HughD in reverting so much, but I still don't think blocking is the optimal solution. HughD needs to be given a chance to explain himself first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

asking for pr, a sure sign of a problem child Hugh (talk) 05:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Before page protection, you may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Joseph Berrios and check in with Orlady, who has been making extensive changes to the article since the problem was reported to WP:BPLN yesterday. She's sort of Wikipedia's BLP-fixer extraordinaire. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

well now, how could i know that?? Hugh (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the diff between the version peer-reviewed in January and the version disputed yesterday: [215]

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Part of my concern is that it has been semi-protected, which is a bit ham-fisted for a two sided dispute when one of them is an IP. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, thanks for your comment. But now may I suggest we get back to semi, thanks. Hugh (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• "I should have waited for my opponent to be blocked" is not what we want to hear! If I find myself at 2RR, much less 3RR, I think very hard about what to do next. That's even if I believe the other editor is breaching WP:BLP every step of the way. In this case, there is no such excuse. HughD carried on past 4RR, past 5RR, past 9RR or wherever he is now, with absolutely no excuse at all. "The IP is associated with the subject" is not something I've ever seen used as an excuse for edit warring. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

uh, i think i said "no excuse" Hugh (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Two comments:

• We routinely go past 3r when dealing with blatant vandalism or spamming. BLPs are in a special category, however.
• I'm not sure what the typical outcomes are for discussions here, but I would hope it would not include a block for HughD. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. While I disagree with HughD's introduction of bias into the article (especially the lede) and his dealings with this IP, on the whole he is a prolific, valuable contributor on Wikipedia.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think my semi-protection of the article was "ham-fisted". I trimmed out the disputed sections, opened an entry at WP:BLPN, semi-protected the article and invited the IP to participate in the discussion there. My deletion of the disputed material was a temporary step to defuse to crisis, not a judgement on its merits; an experienced editor, Orlady, is now slowly reconstituting a more neutral version. I suggest leaving the article semi-protected and letting IPs express themselves on the talk page. I suspect our new version of the article may not necessarily please its subject; he just won't have very good grounds to object.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

"I suggest leaving the article semi-protected and letting IPs express themselves on the talk page." Thanks for the semi. It's all we need here, folks. Really. I will work with all editors including our IP in the finest wp fashion. Hugh (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

[EC] After being alerted to the BLP situation, I spent a lot of time working on this article to remove and/or rewrite content that I perceived to have egregious BLP issues, as well as some content that seemed at most peripherally relevant to this bio. Apparently, HughD disagreed with my changes, as he has reverted most of them. These are not subtle BLP problems; for example, although this is an article about a current elective officeholder who has not (AFAICT) been convicted of a crime, HughD's latest version of the WP:lead section (which is actually milder than some earlier versions) states as a matter of fact that he has engaged in a number of illegal activities: "Berrios hired relatives and friends to government jobs under his control, complemented elected office with a private lobbying practice, used ballot access law to political advantage, and vigorously defended accepting campaign contributions from those doing business with his elected office". I don't have time to deal with this right now (I'm late for a meeting), but I recommend that someone revert the page to my last edit, full-protect the article, and unblock the IP so that they can participate in talk-page discussion. (And, FWIW, I didn't finish cleaning up the BLP problems in the article, but I think I made a lot of good progress.) --Orlady (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your edits. The intro makes no reference to illegal activities. As per MOS the intro summarizes aspects of notability. The activities mentioned in the intro are facts manifest in multiple RS. Further, the subject of the article has been very outspoken in rs in defense of those activities and so he or his surrogates should not have any problem with that lede. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Dennis, would you like to undertake not to get involved in this article's topic, and discussion of other's role in it, any further? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

may I ask, why you have asked one wikipedian to not participate in this discussion? Hugh (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Because I respect his judgement. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your reply. Hugh (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

oh, i get it - Dennis is concerned about retention of experienced editors, that's why you asked him to bug out. you might have answered my question Hugh (talk) 04:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• HughD, would you agree that edit-warring in this way is *never* acceptable, that you will never edit-war in this way again, whether you view the other party's actions as "whitewashing" or not, whether you view the allegations as "well sourced" or not? Further, will you agree not to edit this specific article again? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Yes. I'm proud of my contributions to this article and I intend to continue to work on it. Hugh (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted our Joseph Berrios article back to Orlady's last version and asked that Hugh make no further edits to the article without getting consensus from multiple, established editors. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

"Orlady's last version" That version omits about 1/3 of the refs. That version is non-neutral in that it gives the subject a pass on hiring of relatives and friends and controversial political campaign fundraising activities as commissioner, both of which issues predominate rs on this subject. That version violates WP:UNDUE to the extent WP:UNDUE exhorts us to give the same or similar weight in the article as coverage in RS. Hugh (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Another administrator has now fully protected the article.[216] --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

There we go, was side tracked at SPI, but full was the correct answer here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Since the article is now fully protected, this report should be closed. A warning to HughD would be apropos. Though the material that HughD is adding has some chance of being technically correct, his repeated additions have the effect of creating a article that reads like an attack piece. If protection were not already in place I would recommend a block of HughD because his actions regarding a BLP could be seen as reckless. The 3RR exemption works only for *removal* of material that could be seen as defamatory. It doesn't excuse HughD for repeatedly restoring possibly-correct negative material whose status needs review, and breaking the 3RR limit while doing so. HughD's responses here are disappointing. EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hugh, if you don't like the fully protected article as it is now, I encourage you to get busy at Talk:Joseph Berrios building consensus for each of your proposed edits. That's the way we're supposed to work on contentious articles.

Ed, I concur with your assessment and recommendations. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

may I ask, what are Orlady's or Reaper's burden to role model concensus building? to me they look like editors being bold Hugh (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I was expecting a more conciliatory tone as well, particularly considering the generosity and good faith dish out by the shovel full here. We all get "one", how we use it is up to each of us, I suppose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

i said "Sorry ... no excuse" back at 19:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC) sry if that was not prostate enough for you, I didn't know I had a min number of word bogey to hit. Hugh (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dennis! Please always assume good faith of everyone else involved. It can be tough! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• As far as warnings go, I believe I have explained the situation adequately on HugeD's talk page. If warring resumes after protection is lifted, I don't think a discussion will be required to determine if a block is justified. Closing is proper at this point, as per Ed. And Demiurge, I'm pretty sure I brought bucketloads of good faith here today. But remember, that good faith isn't a suicide pact. I'm not sure how I could have possibly given any more good faith than my discussion here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• You've brought a great deal of disappointment, that's clear. I guess this is over. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Without examining the content under dispute, I can say that as WP:CHICAGO director, I trust HughD (talk · contribs) to make faithful edits to any local government official's biography. I would probably side with him on a dispute about the propriety of including or excluding content for Chicago politics. I'd have to take some time to examine the content at issue to really make a fuller statement.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • P.S. I find it odd that almost all comments concede that HughD's content may be correct negative material. Given his long record as Chicago's most devoted editor of local politicians, I assume it is correct. I think limitations on his re-adding content that is probably correct are wrong.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Warned Assuming the best of faith in all parties, no action taken this time. Any future violations of 3RR will be cause for a swift block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Page: Joan Juliet Buck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User being reported: Bbb23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Has repeatably removed large sections of Joan Juliet Buck article with from what I can see no justification despite repeated warnings by both editors and administrators. Manbumper (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be a tag-team edit war involving Bbb23, Collect, Aichikawa, 89.133.214.66, and Manbumper. Par for the course. Should be locked and forced into dispute resolution. —Kerfuffler 23:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Well, one side is right and the other is wrong. I've locked the article down, wrong version or not. Now, anyone who knows our BLP policy can tell that Manbumper and the IP are wrong, and anyone who's looked at ANI recently knows why Kerfuffler is getting involved with this. I'll leave it to someone else to sort this out, and tease out its consequences. Drmies (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Please honestly check the history please it is much more then me and the IP.

Manbumper (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I appreciate the lock. I'm not sure why the article is such a headache. As a point of protocol, if this had been about anyone but me, I would have removed the "report" as at a minimum malformed. I feel like we're at ANI, not at ANEW.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Sure thing. Some kind and independent admin will come by and take care of this, no doubt. I see that IP 89 is blocked, and I foresee a learning curve for Manbumper. Bbb, I'm letting someone else really do the honors, given Kerfuffler's involvement, and my recent kerfuffle with them, and etc. etc. Let's see what happens; a good reader of Paradise Lost knows that evil sometimes brings forth good. Drmies (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Here are the userlinks for the IP: 89.133.214.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• It appears that the IP was warring to insert material that is inappropriate under WP:BLP. This page has a lot of previous noticeboard discussions. Drmies has fully protected the page for three days, and Kuru has blocked the IP (now for a second time). Even the edit filter agrees with Drmies, since it flagged several edits by the IP as "BLP vandalism or libel." Since various IPs have been inserting the same material, I recommend semiprotection when the full protection expires. Manbumper made some edits similar to the IP but he has only edited once in the past week. Is there anything more to do here? EdJohnston (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest to Manbumper that it would be a good idea to avoid this article. Dougweller (talk) 13:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Judging from the edit summary here, "another socket", it appears Manbumper thinks User:Drmies is a sock of User:Bbb23. It does make one reflect on WP:Competence is required. At some point we might consider sanctions for making frivolous reports. EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Socket, clone...what's next? Drmies (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Article fully protected, IP editor blocked. Editors are reminded that WP:BLP is important. EdJohnston (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

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

This user is repeatedly deleting the same cited content from the article. He/she has not attempted to discuss this on the talk page.

• 11 September 2012[217]
• 6 September 2012[218]
• 4 September 2012[219]
• 23 August 2012[220]

Other users have reverted these edits as vandalism.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Kept on requesting in my edit summary. But no one there is ready to discuss but reverting. Wasif (talk) 06:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries do not count as discussion. Please follow the WP:BRD process. --Chris (talk) 14:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the same behavior Wasif displayed on Popular Front of India page and deleted many references, even using talk page failed to stop his destructive nature. He is intent to blank out all criminal acts of PFI. WBRSin (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

check these 1 2 3 4 5 6

He even removed the peacock tag without rectifying the wiki to NPOV 7 WBRSin (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Page: Golden Dawn (Greece) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 31.54.86.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [221] (17:21, 11 Sep)

• 1st revert: [222] (23:00, 11 Sep)
• 2nd revert: [223] (00:26, 12 Sep)
• 3rd revert: [224] (09:55, 12 Sep)
• 4th revert: [225] (11:23, 12 Sep)
• 5th revert: [226] (12:15, 12 Sep)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [227] (09:09, 12 Sep) - 3rd, 4th and 5th revert after edit warring warning!

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [228]

Comments:
This is not a content dispute (the user admits "Sure, GD are extremists" - diff), but the anonymous user's edits are clearly disruptive, as he/she falsifies an original quotation from a source the article uses, and then claims that there were no source using this formulation, while in fact it is exact the wording the cited source uses. --RJFF (talk) 10:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours due to clear edit warring. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Page: Catch Me If You Can (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 90.199.99.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [229]

• 1st revert: [230]
• 2nd revert: [231]
• 3rd revert: [232]
• 4th revert: [233]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [234]

Comments:User:90.199.99.87 and User:TheOldJacobite have both been edit-warring across articles, first at The Goonies and now at Catch Me If You Can. The only reason I'm not reporting TheOldJacobite is that the IP was previously blocked by User:Edgar181, who indicated that TheOldJacobite had good reasons for the reversions. Other than that, AFAIC they're both in wanton violation of 3RR.

Doniago (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI this IP is yet another return of our Burton-on-Trent problem editor. See this previous SPI report Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/90.200.85.232/Archive and this page which I started to track the numerous IPs that the editor has hopped to User:MarnetteD/Burton-on-Trent Vandal. The editor has never responded to messages on their various talk pages. Several of the past IPs have been blocked by various admins and this one should be as quickly as possible. MarnetteD | Talk 21:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Swarm ^X 23:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [235]

• 1st revert: [236]
• 2nd revert: [237]
• 3rd revert: [238]
• 4th revert: [239]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [240] (edit summary)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [241]

Comments:
I ammended some details to this article page in keeping with WP:MOSFILM (mainly identifying the film's nationality in the lead section among other things), which was then immediately reverted by User:MarnetteD who said that this was not the "preferred version". Obviously she meant this was not her preferred version, and I restored my edits quoting WP:MOSFILM in the edit summary. MarnetteD again reverted the details, claiming that the nationality of the film required a source (despite the fact the nationality was already mentioned in the infobox in her preferred version and she had no problem with it there). The issue of the film's nationality was never an issue but MarnetteD has decided to make an issue about it in a deliberate attempt to be obstructive just so that her own preferred version of the lead would stay in place, which is a blatant case of article ownership. I restored my edit again, this time quoting WP:CITELEAD which states that sources do not always have to be added to the lead section of articles as it is little more than a summary and adequate sources are already included in the article's main body (several sources confirm that the film is American, including the American Film Insitute, AllRovi, etc). I also added a message to the article's talk page to engage MarnetteD and any other users in discussion about this. However, this was ignored and MarnetteD simply reverted my edits again, spouting something incomprehensible about WP:OVERLINK as a reason in her edit summary (which was my argument, not hers). She has now made four reverts to this article in less than 24 hours, and has refused to enter into discussion, violating WP:3RR and WP:OWN. This is not the first problem that I have had with MarnetteD recently, and I filed another 3RR report about her only two weeks ago for which she was warned by an admin about similar conduct on another article and told to use discussion. I myself have adhered to this, but she has not. This highly problematic user has a history of edit warring and has been blocked previously for such behaviour. Obviously warnings have no effect and so a further block should be imposed to stop this behaviour from recurring. 88.110.251.59 (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

As I never received notification of this let me point out that with my last edit I included the country identification that the IP was insisting on and NOT reverting to the previous version. Thus, I also did NOT refuse to enter into discussion as I accepted their argument and adapted their edit into the previous lede. The direct to overlink was not incomprehensible if the IP had looked at the edit. It would be interesting to know where the IP comes up with their accusations of my being a problematic user. It would also be nice if they got my gender right. MarnetteD | Talk 23:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah. I was posting here while they were posting their notice of this discussion so they did let me know of this. I couldn't see it until after I saved my post above. MarnetteD | Talk 23:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The block log and the various warnings from other users on your talk page are evidence enough of your problematic behaviour. And you have still made 4 reverts in 24 hours (either partial or full) AND refused to discuss the issue as you have previously been instructed to do. 88.110.251.59 (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

One warning on my talk page for an incident where it is possible that you were also involved and two blocks the most recent almost two years old is not evidence of problematic behavior. You still have not noticed that the last edit was not a revert so you may want to look at it again. MarnetteD | Talk 23:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. --Chris (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Page: MMR vaccine controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ducatidave5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [242]
• 2nd revert: [243]
• 3rd revert: [244]
• 4th revert: [245]
• 5th revert: [246]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [247]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments like this, this, and this did not indicate that the editor was very interested in anything but this one article and constantly make one change to it. We've seen this before with vaccine articles.

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Also blocked for disruptive agenda - see here.Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Aaaand we're back: COI posting by the same user. a13ean (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Page:  Page-multi error: no page detected.
User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help).

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:

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. --Chris (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
• User was probably reporting a lengthy edit war at Sadia Dehlvi, for which I have requested page protection. Ankh.Morpork 15:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

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

The article is under WP:ARBPIA restrictions and 1rr applies

• 1st revert: This reverted this
• 2nd revert: Blanked a large section of the article
• 3rd revert: This partially reverting this

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [248]

Comments: Mystichumpwipe has already been blocked twice in the past for similar violations on the Rachel Corrie article, and has had 1rr extensively explained to him.

Explanation: back-to-back editing in one 24 hour period.

--Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Declined: While these edits are reverts and do have intervening edits, those edits are not substantial content edits. There are three edits by Tom harrison (talk · contribs) doing small formatting fixes that do not affect article content, and one edit from a bot restoring an orphaned ref. The edit warring policy states that "a series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert" and while there are intervening edits in this case, they are not content-related and are so minor and that I'm inclined to treat Mystichumwipe's edits as one single revert. I believe this is in line with the intended spirit of the edit warring policy, which is designed to stop a back-and-forth revert war over content. That's not what I see here. --Chris (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [249]

• 1st revert: [250]
• 2nd revert: [251]
• 3rd revert: [252]
• 4th revert: [253]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [254]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [255]

Comments:

• Page protected. There is a discussion going on at the article talk page so I am hesitant to block one or both parties to this dispute. Both parties are advised to discuss there and stop reverting each other, and PiCo is strongly encouraged to follow the WP:BRD process in the future. --Chris (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the notice. As editor User:Tahc is determined to impose his own pov on the article and refuses to listen to any argument, can you advise where this dispute can go next? PiCo (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• It is rather PiCo that "refuses to listen", and he will not even pretend to disscuss the issue as per WP:BRD. PiCo mearly wants to push others to use force so that he is not bothered by discussing anything with anyone who not following his own pov for the article. tahc ^chat 01:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Page: 2002 Hebron ambush (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jokkmokks-Goran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [256] this is reinserting info that was previously removed a few days ago. In fact, we discussed this on the talk page, and a look at it shows only Jokks supports putting it in, while no one else does - there isn't consensus to put it back in. He didn't bother to even comment on the talk page about it...
• 2nd revert: [257] (reinserts this and other info after I removed it today) and this nonsensical revert
• Article is under ARBPIA, 1RR.

Look at his contributions/user talk page history - he has extensive dealings in the area.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [258] - as mentioned above, despite not having consensus to put it back in, he simply ignored the talk page and put it in a few days later, without even commenting on the talk page.

Comments:

Activism, I don't think your reason for reverting in the edit summary, "Btselem is POV and can't be used unless mentioned in RS", is valid. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_61#Reliability_of_Israeli_human_rights_organization_B.27Tselem (although note the editor there, Stellarkid, is a long term sockpuppeteer who was previously involved in the CAMERA campaign in Wikipedia). My understanding is that B'tselem is an RS with attribution, like Human Rights Watch or the IDF. Jokkmokks-Goran seems to be trying to build the article. It is not entirely clear why you aren't helping him. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm more than happy with discussing this further on the talk page of that article. Note though that Jokks also reinserted previously removed content for which there was an open discussion on the talk page without any consensus to put it back in, and after I removed it for that reason, reinserted it again, which is really the main reason I'm here. --Activism1234 20:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This is irrelevant, because it's not a content dispute but rather a clear breach of 1RR.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Activism, yes, it would have been better if he didn't do that. He should have continued to discuss it, but you must know that running straight here will reduce your chance of collaboration, which will ultimately damage the article. Shrike, it's not irrelevant that there is a dispute where an editor is unable to build an article based on RS and another editor feels it's necessary to file a 1RR report because they are not getting collaboration on the talk page. We're supposed to build articles but it's becoming increasingly difficult in the topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Activism1234 has repeated deleted all information concerning Israeli plans for and actual destruction of Palestinian houses in Hebron. I believe that this is highly relevant for the subject of the article. The material has reliable Israeli sources. He has not given any real reason why it should not be included.

I didn’t notice that this was one of the things Activism1234 deleted. The other things he deleted were new additions to the article that had never been there before and therefore not “reverts” as I understand the term.

He deleted two quotes from a report by B’Tselem on the pretext that it’s not a RS. He then also deleted the source. But this B’Tselem report had been included as a source in the article for a long time, supporting the additional claim that Hebron was subjected to a full six months of curfew.

Then he deleted American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee’s reaction to the statements made by Powell and Annan in the “International reactions” section. I see no reason to exclude it. Activism1234 also gave no reason for this deletion.

Then he changed the term “fighter from Hamas” to “Hamas militant” claiming that the former implied glorification of this person. I don’t think this is a particularly important point. But I believe that “fighter” is more neutral than “militant” and therefore more appropriate in Wikipedia.

I made a rash decision and I am therefore guilty of violating the 1RR rule, at least technically. For that I’m sorry and I promise to be more careful next time. I’m also prepared to take my punishment for this.

It is however apparent that me and Activism1234 cannot solve our differences on our own. He is pushing his political agenda very strongly. I feel Activism1234 does not seriously discuss the issues on the talk page. He repeatedly comes up with his own interpretations of events but never supply any sources backing this interpretation.

His idea is that any information that he disapproves of, however well-sourced, should stay out of the article until we “reach consensus”. But that will never happen. We need the help of a third party. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 18:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

if it was a rash decision, and you truly regret it, why don't you simply go to that article and undo your last edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by They think it's all over (talk • contribs) 20:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I should have but I didn't realize my mistake until I was reported here. By then it would probably be seen as a hypocritical gesture. I am sorry for violating the 1RR rule. But I will continue trying to have the section included in the future. Without violating rules. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it would actually work in your favor. I've seen a number of these reports closed with no adverse effect on the violator when they simply said "sorry, I've undone my violation and won't do it again". — Preceding unsigned comment added by They think it's all over (talk • contribs) 20:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to note that it's been over a day and Jokks has refused to revert... Apparently doesn't have any interest in doing so, and thus we have an edit of a 1RR violation remaining on the page for over an entire day... --Activism1234 23:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

?? It's been a few days and no decision has been made. Jokks himself wrote above, "I made a rash decision and I am therefore guilty of violating the 1RR rule, at least technically. For that I’m sorry and I promise to be more careful next time. I’m also prepared to take my punishment for this." --Activism1234 22:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Declined. I'm not going to block for a few reasons in no particular order. First, enforcement of the 1RR restriction is not mandatory ("may be blocked"). Second, the report is somewhat stale now, and Jokkmokks has not edited anything for a couple of days. Third, Jokkmokks has acknowledged the error and promised not to do it again, which, to some extent, makes any block punitive. Although I understand Jokkmokks' comment about self-reversion being seen as "hypocritical", I agree with User:They think it's all over that it would have still been seen as a constructive, even if belated, gesture to self-revert. I will leave a warning on Jokkmokks' talk page advising them that any future breach of the Arbcom restriction may be met with more severely than an apparent first-time violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Page: Do-support (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tjo3ya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Do-support&oldid=512194142

• please see article history here: Do-support&curid=27357385&action=history

User has made a change from the aforementioned version that includes his opinion. This original change was unsigned as he was not logged in. I reverted and specified that the added statements were opinion. User logged in and reverted the change. I again reverted back and pointed out the reason. This has gone back and forth. In nearly each revert I have specified that the change requires an inline citation/reference to a source supporting this change if it is fact because otherwise it's just opinion. Previous discussions regarding this article have centered around specification that all statements in it have specific sources to back them up. This user has been one of the people making that demand but now refuses to provide proof for his own changes.

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

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

Comments:

This behavior follows a pattern that has become all too common in linguistics and especially English language linguistics and grammar articles in which the person making a change is free to do so without sourcing yet then clamours that the editors reverting the unsubstantiated changes provide sources for their opposition. Sources for and discussion of changes should occur BEFORE making changes to an article and it should be up to the person proposing to change what already exists to prove his case, not the opposite with free license to claim anything and then requiring that the status-quo be justified instead.Drew.ward (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Funny, Tjo3ya has reported Drew at WP:AN for the same edit war (as well as some other things). I hate to say "blocks all around" even though users have violated 3RR here. It's possible that User:Victor Yus stopped the conflict with his own edits. How about an affirmation by both parties that they understand this sort of thing is inappropriate? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 12:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I have repeated acknowledged that I too (unintentionally) also violated 3RR, but have also pointed out that as soon as I realised this and recognized that the dispute with Tjo3ya had become or was destined to become/continue to be an edit war, I walked away from the situation, leaving his change intact. That's the point at which I opened this report here. Regardless of what is thought of my views, my intentions are good and whether some feel that the debates that ensue are exasperating or not worthy of discussion, I think that if you look at the various threads, that I try to start every one as a friendly discussion but usually they deteriorate into personal attacks on me or insulting attacks on my views on the part of other editors. All I ever ask for in such discussions is equitable treatment and for everyone to hold themselves to the same standards of proof and sourcing and such that they demand of everyone else. Most seem unwilling to do so and behave along the lines of since they feel their argument is the accepted or standard one, that they don't have to provide anything to back up their views. I don't accept this and I don't think it's within the intent of wikipedia's policies. As to Tjo3ya's problems with me, I don't think it has anything to do with "do-support" or linguistics, but rather that I would have the gall to dare question his expertise which makes him angry and defensive as is obvious in his exchanges with me which instead of discussing whatever topic are just filled with personal attacks and insults.

I had no intention of violating 3RR nor do I intend to do so in the future. I also had no intention of edit warring with Tjo3ya and tried to avoid that by repeatedly saying why I was reverting. Neither of us behaved in the best character toward the end, but when I recognized a problem I walked away. I am fine with the bulk of Viktor's changes and have been having a pleasant civil discussion with him regarding these on his talk page (something I rarely get the chance to do on here). Had Tjo3ya simply bothered to provide an citation for his changes, I would have gladly left his statements in place within that article as well (even though I don't agree with them). However, he wasn't willing to do that. And further, as we see from Viktor's version, it was perfectly possible to accomplish the original goal of improving the introduction without the opinions that Tjo3ya had added. Had he been willing to discuss the topic on the talk page, perhaps he and I would have come to agreement that resulted in something similar, but he chose a different route.Drew.ward (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

To judge the extent of the problem, I suggest spending a bit of time reading the exchanges. See Drew's behavior at the following pages: talk:do-support, talk:auxiliary verb, and currently at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics. Despite many attempts from me and from numerous other editors to get him to produce literature to back up his points, he will not do this. He prefers instead to overwhelm the exchange with excess verbiage filled with bizaar claims. The recent edit war between him and me at the article on do-support may have been necessary to draw attention to the greater problem. --Tjo3ya (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Would you believe that that actually doesn't justify edit warring or 3RR violations? Disruptiveness to draw attention to something is what's called disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 18:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Aeusoes, I'm not sure that this fits any of the guidelines identifying disruption. It certainly constitutes edit warring, but I don't think it constitutes pointy behavior. If you read the examples in the page you linked to, none fits the current scenario. In particular, I find the following message at the end of the page:

A commonly used shortcut to this page is WP:POINT. However, just because someone is making a point does not mean that s/he is disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate it. As a rule, one engaging in "POINTY" behavior is making edits which s/he does not really agree with, for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition.

I was reinstating additions to the article that I believe in. My actions were in no way misrepresenting my belief about what is good linguistics and what is good Wikipedia information.

Here's the basic problem: if noone draws full attention to Drew's behavior, he will continue the disruptions. From my point of view, I want as many editors to examine Drew's behavior as possible. Perhaps an unfortunate trait of humans is that nobody really pays much attention until there is real controversy. The controversy draws the attention that is necessary to perhaps move the situation toward a resolution.

Furthermore, I find this statement on the page concerning edit warring and how to avoid/resolve it:

The primary venue for discussing the dispute should be the article talk page, which is where a reviewing admin will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute.

My move should be interpreted with this statement in mind. I want the administrators to go to the talk pages and examine how Drew has been behaving. I want those with the potential to resolve the impasse to look at the record and to take action. --Tjo3ya (talk) 03:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Tjo3ya, seriously, what is wrong with you? Disagreeing with you is neither disruptive nor bad behavior. You have yet come up with a single example of ill-willed editing, disruptive editing, obstructive editing, or anything else on my part. The only thing you've shown is that when presented with a situation in which one of your (unsigned) edits was reverted due to it expressing unsourced/uncited opinion, rather than going to the talk page to discuss the matter, you yourself started and carried on an edit war. My mistake was letting your immature behavior drag me into it with you. If you really truly get so offended that someone would question your edits or expect you to actually defend your claims in open discussions, then why are you even on wikipedia? This whole situation has turned into a childish mess!Drew.ward (talk) 06:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Aeusoes, My suggestion is to block us both equally for a couple weeks. That will allow the administrators to remain on the fence - no danger to them about taking sides. We will both have some time to cool down. Anything to get this guy to shut up (for at least awhile). --Tjo3ya (talk) 06:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, let me try to make this situation more clear. I will now provide some diffs that illustrate how Drew operates. Here is one of the more extreme examples of the lengthy incoherent ramblings that he produces as he attempts to back up up his unsupported claims (unsupported because he does not back any of this up with literature):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Do-support&diff=499178974&oldid=499141901

Here's an example of how he reacts when he is confronted with information that is not contained in his limited exposure to the linguistics literature:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Auxiliary_verb&diff=502614364&oldid=502612641

Here's an example of how he trashes the work of others (who have performed this work in good faith) as he begins a discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grammatical_tense&diff=511636040&oldid=423053623

These three diffs are just a very small sampling of how this guy operates. Please spend a bit of time to take in some of the comments surrounding these diffs.

Drew's behavior can be ignored when it remains on the talk pages. But when someone like this undertakes to undo the work of others, it should not be a surprise that conflict ensues. --Tjo3ya (talk) 09:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't think you were actually being pointy because I don't think you were deliberately thinking "I know this is disruptive but I'm going to do it anyway to draw attention to Drew Ward's behavior." I'm sure you edit warred because, as you said, you preferred your version. I was responding to your claim that, although you edit warred, it was okay because now it's allowed for a venue for administrators to scrutinize Drew's behavior. That doesn't justify it and it's probably not going to work. As I mentioned at the ANI you opened yesterday, if your intent is to draw administrative attention at problematic behavior by Drew Ward, the proper venue is not the ANI. Perhaps an WP:RFC or WP:Wikiquette assistance. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 12:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Tjo3ya, blocking is meant to prevent likely detrimental actions. I have neither ever intended nor performed detrimental actions and you have not been able to provide a single example to support such a claim. I doubt your activities have been based on intention on your own part to cause detriment to Wikipedia either. According to the rules, we both violated 3RR and we both participated in edit warring -- you intentionally, me unintentionally -- which regardless of intent is against the rules. In other words, both of us broke two rules. I neither intended to break those rules nor do I intend to break them in the future. Unless you yourself plan to break those rules again, I fail to see what the point in blocking either of us.

Your continued attacks on me and your endless complaints about the way I write on talk pages make no sense, are baseless, and do nothing but make you seem childish. We are both adults. We are both linguists. We are both educators. Is it too much to ask that we act like it? If you so vehemently disagree with the points I raise in discussions, disagree with them. If you are certain I am wrong, then (without disparaging me or my views) explain why. If you have specific sources that support your views, post them. You keep saying that I don't tend to provide sources for the points I raise. You leave out two very important details in that statement. Such sourcing is within the context of discussions on talk pages, not in articles. You and others who have expressed frustration with my "style", generally instead of discussing and talking about something, just yell for sources and never bother to address the points raised. Second, the usual reason I don't bother to take the time out of my busy day to dig out sources and post them for you and others is because you constantly demand sources from me, yet refuse to provide sources for your own arguments. If you want me to actually take the time and effort to provide you a source, precede that request (and yes, it is possible to politely request rather than angrily demand), with sources for your own arguments! As I keep repeating when you guys demand one thing of others yet refuse to hold yourselves to the same standards: practice what you preach, and, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you post proper sources, I'll take the time to read them before responding to you. But if ever you ask me for a source, make sure you're willing to do the same. It makes no sense to provide a source especially one you probably won't bother to read because I have as yet not been in a single discussion with you in which you were the slightest bit willing to actually consider someone else' viewpoint when it differed from your own), if you're just going to ignore it and continue to argue or as usual, try to turn things into personal insults.

Regarding this edit war and your proposed change to the "do-support" article, your continued reverts served no purpose other than adamant opposition to me. You have made it very very clear, and you continue to say everywhere on Wikipedia that you think you can find an audience, that you don't think I am competent enough to even be on here and especially not to edit or contribute to linguistics articles. You didn't keep reverting your change because someone disagreed with it. You reverted them because Drew.Ward disagreed with them! You've made that clear and you made it clear on your comments on the change log. You seem to have assumed you know a considerable amount about me. And you seem to obviously assume that I have ill intentions. You are incorrect in all of it. What you have however publicly shown and demonstrated through your actions is that you yourself did in fact commence and maintain an edit war with the active negative intent to break the rules so that you could spite me and so that you could attempt to find a public forum to berate me. You have even fabricated lies about me. And, you have made repeated statements that come very close to feeling like threats against me and promises to obstruct my activities as an editor.

I have been editing articles and participating in discussions on this site for years longer than you have. Until now, I have never had to deal with anything even remotely related to this childish attempt to eliminate someone who you seem to have a personal problem with. I will continue to monitor articles and contribute to them. If I see a change or statement I feel runs counter to the policies of WP, I will take proper action as I did with your change on "do-support". I will also continue to question anything I don't agree with in talk pages and discussion boards because that is what they are for. I will also continue to not back down in the face of bullying. If you want to participate in such discussions and debate things in a civil way, I welcome it. However, if you feel you are unwilling or unable to effectively debate me or participate in academic discussions with me, or maybe if you're just not up to the task, or even if you simply feel it's not worth your time, then LEAVE ME ALONE! Don't comment on those threads. If you have nothing to offer a conversation, then stay out of it. But quite whining that someone should block me or kick me off wikipedia just because you get pissed off when someone disagrees with you and doesn't accept your self-confidence as sufficient grounds for ending a discussion.Drew.ward (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Although both editors were edit-warring, I blocked Tjo3ya because they changed the article after this report. That made no sense in light of this extensive argument, mixed in with confessions, accusations, etc.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong here, Bbb23, it's not my intention to challenge your judgment, but your rationale doesn't make sense. You aren't saying that Tjo continued to edit war after this complaint was posted, are you? It was close, with Tjo's final revert preceding Drew's initiating this discussion by 12 minutes, but that last revert preceded Tjo' s own report by 12 hours, and the notification of this discussion by almost a full day. If you're referring to these two edits, I'm not sure what the problem is. Are you saying Tjo shouldn't have edited the article at all considering the contention around it? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 01:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)