Page: Artur Mas i Gavarró (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 124.149.77.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [17:37, 30 September 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+2,545)‎ . . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring ‎

17:36, 30 September 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-12)‎ . . Artur Mas i Gavarró ‎ (Undid revision 627705175 by Cataluniaesespania1 (talk)) (current) 17:25, 30 September 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-11)‎ . . Artur Mas i Gavarró ‎ (Undid revision 627703494 by Struwwelpepper (talk). For fuck's sake, act like a grown up.) 17:08, 30 September 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-11)‎ . . Artur Mas i Gavarró ‎ (Artur Mas is Catalan, just as Alex Salmond is Scottish. He's even specifically said he's Catalan, not Spanish. Stop pushing your castilian crap.)]

1. [17:37, 30 September 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+2,545)‎ . . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring ‎

17:36, 30 September 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-12)‎ . . Artur Mas i Gavarró ‎ (Undid revision 627705175 by Cataluniaesespania1 (talk)) (current) 17:25, 30 September 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-11)‎ . . Artur Mas i Gavarró ‎ (Undid revision 627703494 by Struwwelpepper (talk). For fuck's sake, act like a grown up.) 17:08, 30 September 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-11)‎ . . Artur Mas i Gavarró ‎ (Artur Mas is Catalan, just as Alex Salmond is Scottish. He's even specifically said he's Catalan, not Spanish. Stop pushing your castilian crap.)]

1. [diff]
2. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [2]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [I have reverted without talking because (ab)user uses offensive language, see post below. I also do no think correcting facts that are actual real facts do not need explaining: Catalan is not a nationality, the actual nationality is Spanish]

Comments: I did not talk back to this user because the language they use is obviously evil: 17:25, 30 September 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-11)‎ . . Artur Mas i Gavarró ‎ (Undid revision 627703494 by Struwwelpepper (talk). For fuck's sake, act like a grown up.) 17:08, 30 September 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-11)‎ . . Artur Mas i Gavarró ‎ (Artur Mas is Catalan, just as Alex Salmond is Scottish. He's even specifically said he's Catalan, not Spanish. Stop pushing your castilian crap.)>

OPTIONAL: This (ab)user who is not even a registered user keeps on changing and deleting actual facts pertaining to the page mentiones above. On editing actual facts about the personality shown above and changing some misleading facts, this user keeps on changing them back. He or she is not registed and his IP address says they're in Perth, Australia. He or she has reported me as an offender giving malicious details about my twitter account saying that I am based in Madrid which is not true. He even accused me of having another account when I have had my own for more than six years!

ABuser 124.149.77.181 is falsely reporting me as a user.

Page: [[<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artur_Mas_i_Gavarr%C3%B3]] 
User being reported: 124.149.77.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artur_Mas_i_Gavarr%C3%B3&action=history

Previous version reverted to: (cur | prev) 17:36, 30 September 2014‎ 124.149.77.181 (talk)‎ . . (18,975 bytes) (-12)‎ . . (Undid revision 627705175 by Cataluniaesespania1 (talk)) (undo)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

see link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artur_Mas_i_Gavarr%C3%B3&action=history

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [ABuser 124.149.77.181 keeps on changing and providing page with misleading information. I was afraid to try to talk and solve this matter as ABuser is using offensive language:

17:25, 30 September 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-11)‎ . . Artur Mas i Gavarró ‎ (Undid revision 627703494 by Struwwelpepper (talk). For fuck's sake, act like a grown up.) 17:08, 30 September 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-11)‎ . . Artur Mas i Gavarró ‎ (Artur Mas is Catalan, just as Alex Salmond is Scottish. He's even specifically said he's Catalan, not Spanish. Stop pushing your castilian crap.)

On his report, he also provides with misleading info saying that I am based in Madrid (based on my twitter account??) and saying that I may have another account too, which I DO NOT. I have had this account for over 5 years and never in my life have abused any other users - you can verify that on my records] Comments:I have corrected the nationality of the personality in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artur_Mas_i_Gavarr%C3%B3 because I think Wikipedia is a an on-line encyclopedia and many people gather their information from wikipedia. Contrary to the accussations of ABuser 124.149.77.181, I am not a pro-Spain abuser. The real fact is that the Catalan nationality does not exist as of today 30/Sep 2014. I want to be an American but I don't have an American passport so just because I say I'm an American doesn't mean it's true, right>

• Result: See the report just above for the semiprotection and the warning to User:Struwwelpepper. EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Page: Golden Rule (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jimharlow99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [3]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Okay, bear with me, because this has gone pear-shaped very quickly. The last stable version of the article is dated September 14, 2014. ([4])

On September 30, 2014, User:Jimharlow99 made an edit to the Judaism section of the article. ([5]) This entry was prepared according to the Hebrew Babylonian Tradition. It reflects the core of Rabbinic Judaism which has been forfeited, by many sects of Judaism, in favor of "theological" positions outside Judaism.

1. User:Paul Barlow reverted this odd, but apparently good faith edit. ([6]) Undid revision 627696889 by Jimharlow99 (talk) oh please
2. User:Jimharlow99 restored his edit. ([7]) Undid revision 627701818 by Paul Barlow (talk) Mr Barlow - the page you insist upon is a Christian View of the Judaic position. My edits reflect a Rabbinic Jewish Position; edited by Rabbis
3. User:Fyrael reverted it. ([8]) Undid revision 627716099 by Jimharlow99 (talk) reverting unsourced edit that utterly fails WP:NPOV
4. User:Jimharlow99 restored his edit. ([9]) Undid revision 627717237 by Fyrael (talk) No more reverts or I escalate these incessant reversions as Vandalism. The Section on Judaism now reflects the position of Rabbinic Jews.
5. User:Paul Barlow reverted it again. ([10]) Undid revision 627725234 by Jimharlow99 (talk) please read W::BRD
6. User:Jimharlow99 restored his edit. ([11]) Undid revision 627748586 by Paul Barlow (talk)
7. User:Paul Barlow reverted it again. ([12]) Undid revision 627749190 by Jimharlow99 (talk) Please take rthis to talk. Self assertions of authority are of no significance here
8. User:Jimharlow99 restored his edit. ([13]) Undid revision 627749634 by Paul Barlow (talk) This incessant reverting has been reported as Vandalism; I posted the sources. Christians censoring Jewish topics will not stand.
9. User:Hgilbert reverted it this time. ([14]) Reverted to revision 627749634 by Paul Barlow (talk): More encyclopedias version. (TW)
10. User:Jimharlow99 restored his edit. ([15]) Undid revision 627755937 by Hgilbert (talk) Another one....I'll just add you to the list of vandals....

And that's where it stands right now. I'd revert it, but User:Jimharlow99 will simply restore it.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17]

Comments:
As you can see, User:Jimharlow99 refuses to hear any objection to his edit, and although he's been on Wikipedia for at least 7 years, does not seem to be aware that his behavior is inappropriate. I'm hoping that a cooling-off period will give him some time to reflect. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 03:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

yep, I've been writing content on Wikipedia for a number of years and never have I met such an intransigent group intent upon misinforming as much as disinforming Wikipedia readers. I focus my energies of Jewish content- nothing else. I am a resource for other Wikipedia authors in the area of Judaica, Halakha, monotheistic jurisprudence and localized customs; and am a curator of Jewish genealogy for a number of organizations. I am a subject matter expert, whereas the reverters seem intent upon forcing a Jew to yield to their Christian consensus of what the Jewish view of "The Golden Rule" should be. Utter pedantic foolishness of the sort I've never witnessed on Wikipedia in all these years. Lise and Mr Barlow have over-reached -- they are at once I'll-qualified to judge Jewish views on the topic, but worse, they insist that the authoritative references I cite are inferior to the mendacious content they continue to revert. I am at best, underwhelmed...nonetheless gobsmacked that this is tolerated. Cooling off period? Nonsense...the only cooling off period is incumbent upon editors who insist upon simultaneously censoring subject matter experts in favor of their own POV. Jaim Harlow 03:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Page: Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Truth is the only religion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Reverting to this version or a similar version of the article. Regular pattern of editor more-or-less reverting to their last preferred version of the article before making any new edits, despite complaints on article and user talk page, and with no explanation beyond that version being "neutral" or having less "advertising". Editor is possibly attempting to insert a particular fact or link without having to justify doing so.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [18]
2. [19]
3. [20]
4. [21]
5. [22]
6. [23]
7. [24]
8. [25]
9. [26]
10. [27]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29]

--McGeddon (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Truth is the only religion (talk · contribs) has been making large reverts to this article since the beginning of September. I see removal of more than 1,000 bytes from the article on Sept 13, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25 and 26. This is a pattern of long-term edit warring. I recommend a block unless they will agree to stop. This article is under probation due to a 2007 Arbcom case. EdJohnston (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I think before you over react to this complaint, you need to look closely at the problems in the topic before I started editing it and take into consideration that I have gone to great lengths to incorporate all of the subsequent edits by other editors.

The problems are serious, as I have pointed out, e.g. self-published material, links to blogspot, numerous insignificant links advertising the religion's retreat centres etc.

The problem is, the topic is being control by followers of the religion who keep reverting to their version.

By working together, the BK editors are able to avoid any one of them being accused of 3RR, although they are all reverting to their same version.

1. Changeisconstant [30]
2. GreyWinterOwl [31]
3. Danh108 [32]

There are many more identical reversions of any changes, even changes inline with the rules.

As far as the accusation that I have not discussed the changes, that is not true. I have substantiated all of the changes and largely they have been accepted by others, and that the previous version not only read like an advert but contained numerous factual errors. For example, see here [33].

It seems to me that what is happening here is that a group of followers are working together to protect their religion's topic page and provoking such a conflict by continually reverting to a version that includes many changes which were not discussed when they were made.

It's worth pointing out that Brahma Kumari adherents are being coordinated off Wikipedia to work on and protect topics relating to their religion and working together as a group, e.g. Danh108, Changeisconstant, GreyWinterOwl.

I hope this clarifies matters. It's also worth pointing out that the BKs did not re-write the topic as it was by discussing it and so the accusation would seem to be unfairly and inaccurately onesided. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 13:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I've tried to work out what the impressive list of 10 differences is supposed to show but it is too difficult or unclear to me. What is clear is that I have continued to work cleaning up the topic and combining neutral or beneficial textual edits by other users. I think it would be more usual to consider where the topic started and where it is now, and I would argue where it is now is a better foundation for development.

For example, from here [34] to here [35] (differences [36]). I think you will agree it is cleaner and more according to the rules. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Althouth this editor claims that 3 "BK editors" are reverting him, the reality is that 7 editors have already reverted his same mass deletion. Just for the record, I don´t like being called a "BK", nor to be referred to as "they" together with 2 editors to whom I never spoke outside wiki nor did I ever participate of any "team" or "plan" involving them. Although I am constantly insulted by this editor, I still try to work with him on the talk page [37], but his behavior never changes. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

If you are going to make broad accusations like "constantly insulted", you should really support them with evidence so others can decide how true they are. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Three more reverts since this report was raised: [38], [39], [40]. --McGeddon (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Latest 2 identical reverts today are of the friendly long-term Wikipedians who are giving their time to try and help the page out [41],[42]. The edit summary after reverting User:McGeddon was just 'add belief' - doesn't even vaguely reflect what the User is actually changing. Danh108 (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The evidence of your constant insults are your constant violations of WP:WIAPA and WP:TPG by constantly making personal remarks that WP:WIAPA characterizes as "personal attacks", specially because there is not a single evidence of them. I don't think I need to be more specific than that, each one just needs to read your posts on talk pages and noticeboards, including this one, read the guidelines and decide for themselves. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 01:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: User:Truth is the only religion is warned against removing any large amount of text (more than 1,000 bytes in one day) without first getting a talk page consensus. If he does so again, he may be blocked without further notice. I already left a comment above about your repeated removals of text on seven days in September. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Page: Hawak Kamay (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Pure Love (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ElNiñoMonstruo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Reversal of ElNiñoMonostruo

Comments:
The user ElNiñoMonstruo reverts my edits without giving any reason. According to Template:Infobox television, The languages ​​and countries should be linked to articles.

• Language: The original language or languages of the show. Do not link to a language article, e.g., English, per WP:OVERLINK.

• Country: The show's country of origin. Do not use flag icons, as this places an unnecessary emphasis on nationality - see MOS:FLAG for a detailed rationale. Do not link to a country article, e.g., United States, per WP:OVERLINK.

Thing that the user does not care and continues as part tells me that these rules are invented myself. I'm trying to add a new template to the article that is linked to soap operas. but the user reverted my edits.

His only response was:

• I AM PISSED OFF!!!

HEY DISRUPTER! YOU ARE FROM VENEZUELA RIGHT? YOU DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT THE PHILIPPINES AND YOU NEVER WATCHED ANY OF PHILIPPINE DRAMAS. I ALREADY STOPPED EDITING ON ALL OF YOUR SPANISH TELENOVELAS ARTICLES A LONG TIME AGO BY USING ALL OF YOUR "REVERTING/UNDO" POWERS. AND NOW YOU ARE BOTHERING ME AGAIN WITH THIS?!? HOW DARE YOU!!? I'M SURE YOU WILL USE YOUR SO-CALLED RULES AGAIN IN THE FUTURE, CAUSE YOU HAVE NO CONSCIENCE AND YOU ARE VERY UNHELPFUL!! PLEASE STOP CREATING ARTICLES ABOUT THE PHILIPPINES OR I WILL CALL THE POLICE!!! (And for the Admins, very sorry for the caps lock.) -ElNiñoMonstruo (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• And the latter

Just remember Mr. DJMalik/GeorgeMilan/Chema/Damian80/McVeigh/ElSeñordelosCielos, you are NOT the president of Wikipedia. STOP REVERTING and STOP COPY! -ElNiñoMonstruo (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This conversation is here. I have also asked for help here.--McVeigh (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

In "Pure Love" is also the same, It is assumed that the soap opera is called "Pure Love" and the infobox says "Pure heart", then she asked me why have two names ?.

'The template "ABS-CBN Franchised" and "ABS-CBN Shows (current and upcoming)":

They are related to other programs that are not soap operas, which I created only contains the ABS-CBN soap operas. His other reason is this: The template that you created is unneccesary because it already has it's own article.--McVeigh (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I am referring to the Template:ABS-CBN telenovelas, not the two other templates above! -ElNiñoMonstruo (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you should stop now Mr. DJMalik/GeorgeMilan/Chema/Damian80/McVeigh/ElSeñordelosCielos. You need to get over your obsession with me. I had already told you many times, but you keep on ignoring me but doing the "Undo-Reverting Powers" and "Copy-Pasting". You don't know that some many people can't edit anymore in Wikipedia all because of your manipulative doings Mr. DJMalik/GeorgeMilan/Chema/Damian80/McVeigh/ElSeñordelosCielos. Please stop creating connections and personal attacks against me. -ElNiñoMonstruo (talk) 14:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Any administrator who attends this. Please read here. To see who is the personal attacks.--McVeigh (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually still awaiting your reply on that ANI, McVeigh the panda ɛˢˡ” 15:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• User:EatsShootsAndLeaves, I had a quick look and see little reason not to block this Monstruo for personal attacks, ownership, a very uncollegial spirit, etc etc. There's an ANI too? Drmies (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Drmies I'm of the opposite opinion, based on the ANI. It appears that McVeigh got into an argument with Monstruo ... and in order to "gain the upper hand", McVeigh changed his sig to make him "more superior" to ElNino ... it's not a positive either way though the panda ɛˢˡ” 17:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, Panda, I certainly didn't mean to suggest that McVeigh's hands are clean. But those ownership claims are ridiculous. Anyway, someone got blocked, don't know who yet; perhaps they should both be. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead and feel free to report me Mr. DJMalik/GeorgeMilan/Jorge Horan/Chema/Damian80/McVeigh/ElSeñordelosCielos, but don't come crying to me if you get blocked again for accusing me for edit warring. -ElNiñoMonstruo (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@EatsShootsAndLeaves: If I read what you wrote there, but did not quite understand what you said. But if I understood something. Is that the problems did not start with this person for my company, which according to him I'm trying to copy it. Problems with this user are for months, the first time that began with their personal attacks towards me was with my other account "Chema". From there he stopped and then returned using different ips to vandalize my user page, as I mentioned before. Now just reverts my edits and what it tells me is that these items are of him and I have no right to edit them..--McVeigh (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Wait a second. So you are now saying that you are accusing me of sockpuppetry? Wow! you are also great at creating stories! For your information, I don't want to be and I will never be associated with you Mr. DJMalik/GeorgeMilan/Jorge Horan/Chema/Damian80/McVeigh/ElSeñordelosCielos. You will just wasting your time because I only use MY account for editing in Wikipedia. Unlike you, I don't have another identity here, so please keep your opinions to yourself. Thanks. -ElNiñoMonstruo (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Although these ips deny that vandalized my user page and now is being protected are yours. You're so obsessed with me until you know how many usernames have had and how many accounts I created, and "ElSeñordelosCielos" is no alternative account was just a name used in my signature user.--McVeigh (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

And now you are saying "You're so obsessed with me" is actually a Copy-Paste! I will say it many times.... I AM NOT USING ANY IPs! I ONLY USE MY REAL ACCOUNT, AND I AM NOT A SOCKPUPPET!! So Mr. DJMalik/GeorgeMilan/Jorge Horan/Chema/Damian80/McVeigh/ElSeñordelosCielos, do you have some more "deny ignores" again? -ElNiñoMonstruo (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of hours Dougweller (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Page

Shellshock (software bug) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Debasish Dey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 627876980 by IRW0 (talk) It is!"
2. 22:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 627875969 by Steel1943 (talk) Created Redirect - Thank you."
3. 21:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 627875395 by Steel1943 (talk) How does it matter? This is a significant achievement you will take it away from a person because the page doesn't redirect?"
4. 21:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC) "Bolded the name of the software bug discoverer."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Shellshock (software bug). (TW)"
2. 22:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Shellshock (software bug). (TW)"
3. 22:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC) "/* October 2014 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC) on User talk:IRW0

Comments:

Per included edit and user talk page, the user does not wish to engage in discussion, and has not responded to attempts to engage. A 24-hour block will perhaps make this editor more cooperative. IRW0 (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC) User is now threatening to use a proxy to engage in further vandalism, and has been vandalizing my user page. [43] IRW0 (talk) 22:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours by User:Ponyo for edit warring and harrasment. Stickee (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Page: West Bloomfield Township, Michigan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lonepine17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Initial addition of content by Lonepine17

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Did my best to write a polite notice informing the user they were edit warring and asking them to engage in discussion

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: John from Idegon had already attempted to open discussion with Lonepine17, user disinterested.

Comments:

Lonepine17 is also using their edit summaries to assert that other users are "paid" "internet hacks" in breach of civility policies and suggesting a battleground mentality.

I am at a loss as to what to do other than report this user. Apologies if I have made errors here, this is my first time filing a report on EWN. Dolescum (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Update to add latest revert by Lonepine17, despite having been informed of the report here. Dolescum (talk) 06:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I again removed affluent from the original article, and left Lonepine a note stating that. I also looked at the other city articles he mentioned and removed it when I found it. It wasn't there in all of them. Left him a note offering help, telling him what I did and suggesting that cooperation was essential in editing Wikipedia and if he didn't like that, that perhaps blogging would be a more productive hobby for him. I would also add that he violated 3RR on 9/27 and the incivility issue with that IMHO warrants at least some action on Adm's part.John from Idegon (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

User still wants to try to keep "affluent" in there in the West Bloomfield Township, Michigan article. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 01:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Page: Younger Dryas impact hypothesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gaba p (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: (see commentary below)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [44]
2. [45]
3. [46]
4. [47]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48] (All are identical.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (non-existent as user Gaba (how he signs himself, but actually "Gaba p") was the instigator; see below)

Comments: The four edits listed above do not by-definition breach 3RR, and would normally not be considered wp:gaming the system either given they stretch to 48 hours, but other circumstances (leading to a maliciously-applied 24hr block of myself) compel me to report this abusive member.

BACKGROUND:

1) Beginning on August 29, there was, in the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis article, an attempt by several editors to prevent inclusion of a new peer-reviewed paper supporting aspects of the hypothesis. Arriving on the scene on Sept. 14, I supported inclusion because the paper (Kennet, 2014) was RS-sourced in a prestigious journal, and felt the "refuted" wording previously present in the article was not an accurate description. While pro/anti tallies are close and there have been sporadic attempts at reversion, inclusion has had consensus.

2) User Gaba( p) arrived on the 25th (he has no prior history of editing the article within viewable 500 edit history stretching back to January 2009), and began reverting to remove the Kennet reference and restore the "refuted" language in the lead of the article. Despite lacking consensus and being a late-arrival, he began admonishing (in his edit commentaries) other editors to explain themselves on the Talk page. (A thread entitled "Continued Removal of Primary References" already existed on the TP; Gaba's last contribution to it, and to the entire TP, dates from last February.)

3) On the 26th, Gaba initiated discussion on my user page (not the Dryas article TP, mind you), again admonishing me to open a topic on the Dryas TP and to revert my edits. (I recommend reading the link in the last sentence now.) Concluding that he was behaving disingenuously after failing to achieve consensus and noting his unwillingness to do what he demanded of other editors (i.e., comment on the TP), I declined. I also told him that I thought he'd followed me over from the Neil deGrasse Tyson article. I have reason to conclude at this point that this activity was to "set me up"/game-the-system to justify a waiting-in-the-wings admin cohort to levy a malicious block (see 5).

4) On 13:59, 27 September 2014, Gaba accused me of edit-warring on my talk page despite my last three edits to the Dryas article at that point being on the 19th, 25th and 26th. In no way, shape or form do three edits over a seven-day period to support consensus violate 3RR or constitute edit-warring (and since Gaba is not a "noob", I am quite sure that he was well aware of this). Defending himself from my stalking charge, he also maintained"...the TP proves I've been following the article for months..." (As noted previously, the TP shows no activity on his part for half a year.)

5) On 21:07, 27 September 2014, less than half a day after Gaba's accusation of edit-warring (and during which period of time from 13:59 to 21:07) I made *no* edits to the Dryas article, the admin 2over0 parachuted in out of the blue to levy a 24hr block on me. Note that no formal accusations (such as this one here) were performed (or if they have, I was not notified per regular procedure).

Conclusion: I would like a general block of greater-than-24hrs duration applied to Gaba for gaming the system and serial dishonesty. I want the malicious block applied to me stricken from the record. Lastly, I would like this whole sordid mess, apparently involving at least one editor and at least one admin, investigated for wolf-pack tactics pursuant to a campaign of intimidation of editors contributing to the Dryas article as well as other "climate change topics". (I can't fathom what the Dryas article has to do with contemporary climate wrangling, but it was Gaba's "Freudian slip" to mention it on my TP, so I am positing it here.)--Froglich (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

____ COMMENTARY _____

Not sure why you would think mentioning "climate change topics" is a "Freudian slip". In any case, here's how climate change and the impact connect if you are really interested: Younger_Dryas#Impact_hypothesis. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 01:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

By conflating my allusion to "contemporary climate wrangling" (i.e., an obvious reference to anthropogenic global-warming theory) with the Younger Dryas Impact hypothesis (which you admonish me to read as if that weren't the very article under discussion), I am left with concluding you are either deliberating insulting everyone's intelligence here, or are you actually completely clueless.--Froglich (talk) 07:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

What? Froglich, the article I pointed you to is Younger Dryas the geological period, obviously connected to the "climate change topic" (which is precisely what I said). This is not the same article as Younger Dryas impact hypothesis as you appear to be implying above. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 11:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sticking with my theory you stalked me over from the Tyson article. Your explanation of having been "following the article for months" while inexplicably sitting on your hands without a word on the TP since February or a single edit whatsoever in the article prior to late September ...rings hollow.--Froglich (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Uh-uh. So now that you've finally understood that the article is indeed related to climate change, as I told you before numerous times, and even after I presented the diff showing you I've been following it since last February, not only do you not apologize but instead are doubling down on your bad faith accusation that I followed you into the article a few days ago. Gaba ^(talk) 21:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I will assume good faith on the part of editors when they're not leading with false accusations.--Froglich (talk) 10:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The request that you assume good faith has long passed, since you clearly will not. You have chosen to keep accusing me of stalking you after I showed I've been following the article since the beginning of the year, you've been corrected on the relation between the article and climate change after commenting you couldn't "fathom" their relation (which you called a "freudian slip" on my part) and you've apologized for neither accusations (among many others, ie: "serial dishonesty", "wolf-pack tactics", etc). I've remained WP:CIVIL this whole time and I'm requesting you cease your attacks please. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 11:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You had no contributions to the article's TP since last February and no edits whatever to the article itself as far back as 2009. While the content of the article seesawed, the consensus of the TP by September 1 was to include the new sources -- given a lack of response on the TP, it is only natural to expect that eventually the article will come to reflect most recent argumentation on the TP. In any event, the article didn't become your baby to own until the 25th of September, when you made your first appearance less than a week after my first appearance, during which time we had both been active in the Tyson article. -- I will stipulate that your explanation is possible if you will stipulate that my conclusion (stalking) is the logical one given that sequence.--Froglich (talk) 12:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Me having no contributions to the TP since February means absolutely nothing. For example, other that your comment two days ago you have no contributions to the TP since the article was created in 2008.

"the consensus of the TP by September 1 was to include the new sources" except it was absolutely not. If you believe this talk page points to any consensus whatsoever to include anything, you either haven't bothered to read the TP or do not understand what consensus means. The state of the article by Sep 1 BTW was the stable one and it remained that way until you changed it two weeks later after no TP contribution whatsoever (since 2008 I might add).

I made my "first appearance" in the article 7 months ago as I have shown over and over again. Your "conclusion" is only the bad faith and combative one, which is no wonder seeing how you behave towards other editors. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 14:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Obfuscation. The "article" is the article -- not its associated TP. You had no prior edit presence in the article prior to September 25. This is *easily* ascertained by bring up its history, setting maximum range of 500 edits (going back to 2009), selecting a search term to highlight ("Gaba" in this case), and performing a simple word find on the page. (Full link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesis&offset=&limit=500&action=history ) ....You do not appear before 9/25.--Froglich (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

All my reverts on that article were done following WP:BRD attempting to restore the consensus stable version of late August. Since then, editors Froglich and Bkobres have been pushing to insert basically the same edit into the article ([49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57]) with editors William M. Connolley, SkepticalRaptor and myself reverting back to the stable version. All my reverts mention explicitly in the summary the need that either of them follow WP:BRD and open a relevant section at the talk page to discuss the issue, which neither did. The section was finally opened by myself (now removed by Froglich) after the latest revert pushing the edit into the article (currently up) by Bkobres.

Froglich's last revert before he was blocked yesterday was made with a summary of "Blarg", pointing clearly to his non-willingness to discuss the matter in the talk page or even stating a reason of any kind. By the way, here is my attempt at resolving the matter with Froglich in his talk page after that reversal. His bad faith accusations of me following him to the article in the last few days are easily demonstrated to be false seeing that I commented on it back in February. He appears to be unable to comprehend that "consensus" isn't who gets to push an edit more but something that needs to be achieved through talk page discussion. Let me know if anything is unclear and I'll gladly expand on int. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 01:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Your serial hypocrisy and dishonesty continue, but this time in front of a wider audience. At no point recently (within half a year) have you followed your own demands of other editors. Your pace of reversion is greater, you had nothing to say on the TP since the inclusion of Kennet prior to this incident (and it's obvious to see why you didn't given the paper was properly cited to an RS), and you accused others of edit-warring for engaging in less of the same behavior you yourself were happily wallowing in.--Froglich (talk) 01:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what demands have I not followed? To adhere to WP:BRD? Froglich, I believe I've told you this half a dozen times now: when you make an edit to an article and it gets reverted, you do not revert back as you did several times; that is considered edit-warring. What you do after your Bold edit was Reversed is Discuss the issue in the talk page opening a new section to do so, i.e: WP:BRD. In each of my reversals I urged you (and Bkobres) to follow WP:BRD and discuss the matter in the TP before continuing reverting, something neither of you did (the obvious proof of that is that the current version of the article is the one Bkobres' pushed with his last edit). I'm not sure I could make the bold, revert, discuss process any more clear than this. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 01:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

As you have been repeatedly reminded, the matter had already been discussed on the Dryas talk page in the thread "Continued Removal of Primary References". You should remember it, not only due to that fact that your one and only submission to the TP (prior to yesterday) was to that very thread, but also because of your claim (made on my TP) to have "been following the article for months".

Given your lacking consensus (established by cessation of response from the "anti-Kennet" faction, as I'll call them, in the aforementioned "Continued Removal of Primary References" thread), if you truly believed it was incumbent upon editors to jump through those BRD hoops when their bold edits were reverted, you would have jumped through them yourself. -- But you did not do so, and I have little reason at this point to believe your proffering of BRD rationales were anything other than a lot of specious gobbledegook on your part being tossed out to justify punitive action from a complicit admin. To wit: "gaming the system". --Froglich (talk) 07:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The matter had in fact not been discussed in the TP, at least not by you. The comment made by Bkobres on Aug 31 was done after his revert against WP:BRD, to which SkepticalRaptor responded. At that point the state of the article was the stable one. Two weeks later you move in and revert to the non consensus version (adding two more edits in line with the revert) which gets immediately reverted. At that precise point the cycle was Bold edit + Revert. The next step by you should have been Discuss as per WP:BRD (eleventh time mentioned). Instead of going to the talk page what you did was revert, then revert, and revert again. There is no contribution made to the issue by you in the talk page of the article until yesterday. You asking me to "jump through those BRD hoops" is illogical since it was not me who made an edit away from the consensus stable version and was reverted, it was you. Thus the onus was and still is on you to discuss the matter in the TP and not revert anymore and the same goes for Bkobres, who is doing pretty much the same thing you did. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 11:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You should have named your "complicit Admin" if you are going to continue making personal attacks - User:2over0. After all, you asked in your unblock request that he be desysopped:"the administrator levying the block for that rationale is, at the best assessment, incompetent for failing to check before levying the block. I want this malicious block not only lifted but stricken from the record (as would be revealed when following the links below either now or in the future), and I want the obviously guilty punished for this blatant abuse of authority. Given the repellent behavior of my accusers, I request the tables be turned and that topic bans be handed out to those responsible, and that 2over0's administrator privileges be revoked." Are you still asking for the following: To third-party administrators: I am requesting that the user Gaba be disciplined in the following manner: 1) a three-month general block for 3RR "gaming the system" and for lying to administrators by accusing other editors of edit-warring when their pace of reversion is slower than his own, and 2) a one-year topic ban on "climate related" articles, to also include the Neil deGrasse Tyson article and the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis article.? And just for info, no one has blocks removed from the record, even those made accidentally (it happened to me but it can't be removed). Dougweller (talk) 09:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Doug, if you're going to weigh in, at least do the heavy lifting. (IOW, read everything first; which, if you do, you'll see that 2over0 is mentioned.) Onlookers will observe that Doug was giggling it up on 2over0's user TP yesterday, with neither one of them apparently the least concerned over Gaba's indiscretions (which are, as detailed above, worse than anything I was accused of and punished for). As far as whether "accidental" (malicious) blocks can be removed, I wouldn't know. (If they can't be, it would be a handy way of smearing an editor's permanent record, no? -- I would submit that such may have indeed been precisely the objective, and hence why deeper examination should be undertaken by non-partisan admins [which you are not] beyond dropping a temporary block on Gaba.)--Froglich (talk) 09:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, yellow text on a red background is really annoying. Please don't do that. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

05:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)~~@Guy Macon: It is. I never user color. As I said, that's the color he used on his talk page. Sorry. Dougweller (talk) 05:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, missed 2over's mention in your long screed, should have searched. I see once again though a personal attack. Unless you can prove these allegations you probably should be blocked for making them. Dougweller (talk) 10:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

That's what investigations are for, Doug; the in-part purpose of this foray being to request one. But your giddy excitement in hoping to secure sentence before the hearing is duly noted, as is your refusal to address the Gaba matter at all. (That's how real ad homina works, of course; changing the subject.)--Froglich (talk) 10:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment by onlooker Disclaimer, Gaba and I periodically interact well in climate articles

(A) This vomitous mass appears to be a run-of-the-mill content disputed in which one side (Froglich) chose to assail the other party instead of using established WP:Dispute resolution procedures to reach WP:Consensus

(B) SUGGESTION, 1. Extend Froglich's block for personal attacks and disruption 2. Refuse action on claim Gaba "lied" to admins with instruction that if Froglich wishes he's free to file separate ANI on that specific point so long as he provides diffs to the evidence supporting these extraordinary claims, and cautioning that a claim based on further vomitous hype instead of clear evidence may result in further block extension per WP:BOOMERANG.

Overall impression.... yawn. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

PS, I might have taken away a different impression if this complaint had been made calmly with DIFFs and omitting the emotion. Not sure. Anyone can seek page protection and initiate the DR process, after all, and it doesn't appear that Gaba did that either. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that I should have seeked page protection or initiate a dispute resolution process after seeing neither Froglich nor Bkobres were willing to either do so or even stop their reverting long enough to discuss the matter in the TP as instructed by WP:BRD. I take full responsibility for that. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 14:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Reply to (A): "appears to be" being shorthand for "I'm not going to bother to read it all, so I'll just guess what's going on." Well, thanks for your contribution, Sir! ...As stated repeatedly, it is Gaba who did not bother to seek consensus before embarking on a reversion campaign.--Froglich (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Reply to (B): Yes, by all means, let's extend sanctions for non-existent "personal attacks" (which we're not even going to bother nebulously defining) and "disruption" (which must refer to my three edits in seven days in support of consensus as opposed to Gaba's four in two against it). Ridiculous.--Froglich (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Hypocrisy and fantasy. You don't have consensus in the Dryas article. Prior to this incident, the "anti-Kennet" side had ceased responding in the relevant TP thread for a couple weeks before my first edit (in support of then-established consensus) in the article in mid-September. You couldn't wrest control of the article back even with my absence (due to the recent 24hr block). You had no presence on the TP since last February.. You had yourself not undertaken one single action you "requested" of other editors. But now you're pretending to be accommodating and conciliatory when previously you were anything but.--Froglich (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

See my last comment on consensus and WP:BRD. I don't think it can be made any more clear than that. You edit-warred and so did Bkobres. If there's no extra input in the next few days from other editors I'm starting a DR process. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 21:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

To keep pushing this narrative that you ever enjoyed consensus is to tell a bald-faced lie. I also observe that this is now the second time you have falsely accused Bkobres of edit-warring for perfectly normal, indeed expected, behavior of an editor (restoring an article to consensus).--Froglich (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I never said I had consensus (I hardly could since I never added content to the article) I said you did not which is easily seen just looking at the history of the article: you made an edit, you were reverted (not by me mind you) and immediately you reverted back instead of going to the TP; that alone constitutes edit-warring and is obviously against WP:BRD (not even counting your next two reverts [58][59], the last one with a summary of "Blarg"). Can't be made any simpler.

Froglich: you've called me a liar among many other things numerous times now and I've remained civil. I'm now politely requesting you stop. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 11:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You falsely accused two others of edit-warring. Retract your false accusations, and we're good.--Froglich (talk) 12:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

If anybody should retract anything here it is you Froglich. I remind you that you were blocked precisely for edit warring so it is not me the only one who feels that way. Gaba ^(talk) 14:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that said malicious 24hr block has already been mentioned top, front and center by me by way of establishing background to this whole sordid mess, you are contributing absolutely nothing new by recycling the smear. Furthermore, you don't have exactly that clean of a nose yourself, with two blocks on your record for sock-puppetry and personal attacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Gaba+p ...as the saying goes, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.--Froglich (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Note to closing admin

(A)Goal is producing good articles and sanctions are for prevention not punishment

(B)Yesterday Gaba posted 4-point criticism of the edit at article talk (Froglich hasn't replied yet)

(C)No obvious purpose served by leaving this open

(D)Suggest closing with warning to Gaba and instructing parties who feel further intervention will truly improve wikipedia file a separate complaint based on whatever the remaining behavior gripe(s) might be. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Onlookers note that the preceding urge to quick closure is being made by a Gaba partisan with a history of editing the Dryas impact article and its associated TP.--Froglich (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Declined. The commentary here indicates a far more complex problem than is in scope for this board. Please continue to discuss and seek dispute resolution as needed. Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts: [60]

1. 18:39, 29 September 2014‎ DSeeB (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,327 bytes) (+5,190)‎ . . (thank) [Undid revisions again]
2. 06:21, 29 September 2014‎ DSeeB (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,325 bytes) (+5,188)‎ . . (Restored pre-vandalism version) (thank)
3. 19:33, 28 September 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+436)‎ . . EidosMedia ‎ (Undid revision 627450775 by Muckrkr (talk))
4. 19:31, 28 September 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-46)‎ . . EidosMedia ‎ (Undid revision 627450552 by Muckrkr (talk))
5. 19:30, 28 September 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+7)‎ . . EidosMedia ‎ (Undid revision 627449699 by 209.6.206.4 (talk))
6. 19:29, 28 September 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+436)‎ . . EidosMedia ‎ (Undid revision 627448650 by 209.6.206.4 (talk))
7. 19:06, 28 September 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+4,680)‎ . . EidosMedia ‎ (Undid revision 627447387 by 209.6.206.4 (talk))
8. 19:05, 28 September 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+58)‎ . . EidosMedia ‎ (Undid revision 627447518 by 209.6.206.4 (talk))
9. 18:44, 28 September 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+4,680)‎ . . EidosMedia ‎ (Undid revision 627440318 by 209.6.206.4 (talk))
10. 18:43, 28 September 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+58)‎ . . EidosMedia ‎ (Undid revision 627440637 by 209.6.206.4 (talk))
11. 18:42, 28 September 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+481)‎ . . EidosMedia ‎ (Undid revision 627440839 by 209.6.206.4 (talk))
12. 16:43, 27 September 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+4,680)‎ . . EidosMedia ‎ (Undid revision 627272997 by 209.6.206.4 (talk))
13. 16:43, 27 September 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+4)‎ . . EidosMedia ‎ (Undid revision 627274481 by 209.6.206.4 (talk))

It appears this user might be an employee of EidoseMedia. He created the page (which has been labeled as reading more like advertising than an encyclopedia) and quick reverses any effort to change the entry to a more neutral PoV or include references to persistent criticism about the company's software.

He has reversed any edits by anyone who touches the page (including Muckrkr and KoshVorlon). The user also does not respond to any of the points made on the talk page. Instead, he treats the entry like the company's own private web page.

• Blocked indefinitely as a promotional-only account. I've left him a message that he may be unblocked if he agrees to limit his activity on that article to proposing changes on the talk page. Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EidosMedia&oldid=627456567
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EidosMedia&oldid=627454700

It appears this user might be an employee of EidoseMedia. The editor recently reversed multiple attempts to change the article to a more neutral PoV or include references to persistent criticism about the company's software. The editor has never touched any other Wikipedia entries.

• Blocked as an obvious sock/meatpuppet of DSeeB. Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Page: Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 unofficial disappearance theories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Amt000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: There is no previous version, because he's continually removing the whole section, contributed by Jinkinson, Thecodingproject, 12.1.154.226, 198.30.60.32, 66.233.207.101, Rustypup49, Cesium 133, Tlhslobus, and others. This is the (current) state of the section: [61].

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [62]
2. [63]
3. [64]
4. [65]

(Reverting is defined as undoing another editor's work. However, if 3RR doesn't apply, he clearly plans to continue edit warring. He deleted the section on September 24, too. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [67] I used the user's talk page to try to talk to him, but he didn't respond.

Comments:
Origamite^ⓣⓒ 12:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I've started a section to discuss the matter at Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 unofficial disappearance theories#User_blanking_section, and left a notification on their talk page.--Auric talk 12:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

mh 17 connection of pitbull and shakira is totaly trash . every body know this is rubbiesh and not belibale. so why it is on wikipedia. in the matter of reference wikipedia is not news paper WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS Amt000 (talk) 14:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Page: Template:University of Hertfordshire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wanderlust1282 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [68]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [69]
2. [70]
3. [71]
4. [72]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No talk page discussion; prior to today, the nonfree image was being added by an editor using multiple IPs; I placed a notice at WP:RFPP, and the template was quickly and uncontroversially semiprotected. When the image was added back by a named account earlier today, I placed both the substantive discussion and the 3RR notice on the account's talk page, to keep any followup discussion in one place.

Comments: Multiple IPs and an SPA repeatedly adding a nonfree image to a template. All appear associated with the University of Hertfordshire. Editing patterns indicate there is one user behind the named account and the IPs. Per NFCC9, nonfree images simply can't be displayed in templates, and I'm claiming the unquestionable NFCC violation exemption for my removals of the image. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Editor is warned they may be blocked if they continue to violate WP:NFCC. See his talk page for details. I've also semiprotected some articles that were being edited by 86.* IPs due to the socking concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 02:28, 1 October 2014

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:04, 1 October 2014
2. 17:12, 1 October 2014
3. 17:31, 1 October 2014 (undoes part of preceding edit)
4. 17:50, 1 October 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Collect is well-aware of the edit-warring and 3RR policies, as a long-time editor and someone who has been blocked for violating them in the past. Notification of this edit-warring report is here.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See endless but not-particularly-productive discussion here, here, here, and here.

Comments:
This is an unequivocal 3RR violation by Collect, with all four reverts occurring in less than 1 hour and violating both the letter and the spirit of the edit-warring and 3RR policies. Note that Collect has multiple prior blocks for edit-warring, was previously topic-banned by ArbCom from a subset of political articles for 6 months, and was recently let off with a warning after edit-warring on another political bio. MastCell ^Talk 18:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: No warning was given. MastCell is a very active participant in the BLP. The TPM "action" by ArbComwas widely contested at the time and included not a single claim of edit warring, but centered on my quoting Teddy Roosevelt in a talk page post, and has absolutely no relevance here. The edits made by MC included WP:BLP issue related material. And his bringing up my block history is inane - my last block over three years ago was quickly undone by AN/I consensus. And note that MastCell said it was wrong for me (even indirectly trouted me for daring to start an RfC of all thins!) to start RfCs on the edits which he now asserts means I was edit warring - even where one was directly contrary to an RfC closed a bare week ago in any event <g>. In short, the OP is fully as culpable, has violated WP:CONSENSUS by making an edit directly contrary to a very recent RfC settle on BLP grounds, and is so involved in the topic that he fails to see his own shortcomings in violating WP:CONSENSUS. Cheers. Violation of WP:BLP as noted in the RfC which MC now wishes to abrogate by himself is sufficient cause for reverting. Collect (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC) Reverts 2 and 4 were specifically pursuant to an RfC decided on WP:BLP policy grounds on 25 September, Revert 3 is on the basis per WP:BLP the claim is not found in the source cited and is a contentious claim. One is simple revert. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The editor didn't assert in any of the edit summaries that there were BLP violations he/she was correcting -- so it won't be very plausible to rely on that sort of assertion now. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Where an RfC was settled on WP:BLP issues, the edit summary start an RfC - but one of the edits goes directly against an RfC for ONE WEEK AGO - this is absolutely contrary to WP:CONSENSUS is clear. read WP:CONSENSUS -- this is getting to be a problem here when contentious partisan claims get added to BLPs on any side) clearly invokes BLP as the consideration. gaining consensus before making this into Braley's campaign brochure - I suggest you seek such before continuing such BOLD contentious edits on the BLP please also clearly invokes the rules about inserting contentious claims in any BLP. I suggest that where such clear assertions are made, that it is clearly true that I was relying onWP:BLP here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Note the responses to the RfCs which I properly started:

Sigh. Has anyone actually put such language into the article or pushed to re-insert it? If so, diffs please. If not, then why are we wasting time with an RfC? This is exceptionally WP:POINTy, a waste of editors' time, and a poorly conceived and phrased RfC. I would suggest closing the RfC and trouting Collect. After that, perhaps we could come back with a more serious discussion or RfC about the Social Security material. MastCell Talk 16:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

If Cwobeel has made objectionable edits, then the discussion should be focused on those edits, not on his choice of words in a talkpage post. I'm not sure how to say that in a way that you'll understand, but nonetheless I'm not going to participate further in this improperly formed RfC. In the future, please use the process more responsibly. MastCell Talk 19:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

As another editor (Elaqueate) noted, the previous RfC was poorly formulated, and I don't think its results clearly endorsed or rejected a discussion of Ernst's comments on Agenda 21, but rather rejected the specific approach taken in previous edits. I think it is reasonable to include 2-3 sentences as this is a topic that attracted significant coverage in reliable sources and is relevant as a minor aspect of a politician's biography. The exact language of our coverage needs to be based on the best available reliable sources. The current wording in Collect's RfC does not appear in the article at present. I would favor the current language, although I'm biased since I wrote it. What are the actual arguments for and against here (noting that "it was added without prior discussion" is not an actual argument on the merits of the content)? MastCell Talk 18:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC) where MC seeks to undo a properly closed RfC from one week ago. He indicates here that he knows his edits are directly contrary to that RfC which was conducted onWP:BLP policy grounds. Thus he knew the issue was WP:BLP Collect (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't indicate anything of the sort, and this kind of tortured misrepresentation of other peoples' comments is a major part of the problem here. MastCell ^Talk 19:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Lastly - MC, had you actually asked me to self-revert, I would have done so. I do not like the dramah boards and folks who bring up events from 3 and 4 years back. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

History suggests otherwise. The last time I asked you to self-revert for one of your repeated 3RR violations, you gave me a long, wikilawyering argument and questioned whether I was capable of counting to 4. You also charmingly removed my responses to give yourself the last word. Subsequently, when I came to your page about a different behavioral issue, you dismissed my concerns as "bullshit" and told me to "stay the hell off this page" ([74], bold in original, of course). I now avoid your talkpage—at your express demand—except for required notifications. MastCell ^Talk 19:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Collect is clearly aware of 3RR when it suits him. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Also, let's be clear. None of these edits which Collect reverted are remotely BLP violations. None. They are all properly sourced and relevant. None of them fall under the 3RR exemption for BLP, which is intended to defend people who are removing clear violations and which Collect has misused before. This is straight-up edit-warring over a content dispute, and 4RR in <1 hour isn't remotely acceptable. MastCell ^Talk 19:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I agree that Tryptofish's "technical self-revert" was risible. (Bishonen) and the reportt was declined as you made no further reverts after the warning. seems to indicate something quite interesting. Cheers - but this has naught to do with the case at hand. And where an RfC states that something is contrary to policy, it is usually true that someone thinks the edit is contrary to policy. Amazingly enough. Collect (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, if that's what you took away from it, I guess you aren't as aware as I gave you credit for. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I've looked over the reverts, and to me, none of them seem to be justified by significant BLP issues. I've also taken a look at the RfCs on the talk page, and find no justification for violating WP:3RR there. Especially if a position has wide support via an RfC, it is not necessary for a single editor to edit-war on this issue - there will be others which have interest in the topic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

IOW it is proper for an editor to unilaterally abrogate an RfC result from a week ago and make an edit against the WP:BLP policy - but improper for anyone to actually follow the WP:BLP policy? Tres interessant et tres amusant. Collect (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

No, IOW: don't edit war, period. If you're right, then another editor will agree with you. That's the basic tenet of editing here. Claiming that you're right still isn't justification for edit-warring. Only somebody who was unsure that anyone else would agree with them would feel the need to personally make four reverts in an hour. So why do it? --RexxS (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

As I noted, a warning as (reasonably ought to be) required would have brought a self-revert. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

wait, you would have restored a "BLP violation"?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. First off, policy explicitly states: "A warning is not required" (they are recommended "if the user appears unaware that edit warring is prohibited"). One should read policy before making assertions about it. Your track record of responding to requests for self-reverts is poor. You also haven't responded to RexxS' question. MastCell ^Talk 20:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggest the article (Joni Ernst) be locked (even to a "wrong version" and suggest further that the OP has an eensy bit of animus showing here, which does not redound in his favour. The goal is to prevent disputes, and use of dispute resolution such as RfC is proper, not to invoke disputes from four and five years ago as part of the discussion, IMO. Cheers to all. Collect (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. I do not believe that edit #3 listed by the OP should be treated as a revert. It clarifies rather than undoes the previous edit, and does not (so far as I see) restore previous text. The text which Collect modified also appears to have been inaccurate (or improper OR/SYNTH); there are important differences between saying the federal government should not take a particular action, and that its powers should be limited to prevent it from taking that action. (Simple analogy: I don't believe my local government should prohibit on-street parking in my neighborhood, but it is quite appropriate for it to have the general power to do so.) This edit, therefore, would also appear to be a good faith attempt at BLP compliance. No opinion expressed on other specific edits. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Collect does indeed have multiple prior blocks for edit-warring, but it's been several years since the last time (and since any block), and that's the reason I don't give him a week. However, taking into account this warning in June 2014, as well as the battleground attitude he evinces, 48 hours seems right. Collect, you have so much editing experience, and indeed edit warring experience, including experience of posting vexatious litigation on this board,[75] that it's unexpected to see you complain repeatedly about not getting a warning. The way you misuse a quote from my decline of your 3RR report here is more than unexpected, it takes my breath away, I'm awed. You take cherry-picking to a whole new level. Bishonen | talk 22:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC).

I strongly disagree with this just-instituted block (in fact I was just composing the following in response to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's comment above) -- as there are not four reverts here as claimed. In fact, I would hold that the claim that there are four in the notice arguably represents a knowingly specious submission. Here are the huge alterations of the "preceding edit" in question. By comparison, here is the tiny tweak of #3. -- That is not a "revert" in any way, shape or form unless every anthill is accounted a equal-height Himalaya.

Lastly, as Bishonen indicates, he is not a neutral onlooker given prior disputes with the editor, and hence ethically ought to have recused himself from this particular judgment. A negative comment would have been more appropriate.--Froglich (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the action taken. You don't need four reverts to be edit-warring and everybody here is well aware of it. To edit-war is fundamentally antithetical to the whole ethos of collaborative editing and there's no excuse for it. As for Bishonen, she is an uninvolved admin by any definition of the word. Check WP:INVOLVED where you'll find the words "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." Collect could easily get unblocked by simply promising not to edit-war again, but chooses instead to insist that he's right. Relying on the so-called "exemption" for putative BLP violations is not a tenable defence. If it really is an indisputable BLP vio then somebody else will join in to revert the violation. The damage done to the encyclopedia by leaving a BLP vio an extra few minutes pales into insignificance compared to the damage that edit-warring wreaks on the encyclopedia every day on a such a large scale. --RexxS (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Disputes? How do you mean? I have had no disputes with Collect. I don't edit those articles, and I don't dispute with him or anyone else about them. I do however watch this board, in my capacity as an admin, and sometimes (rather infrequently, I'm not here that much) decline a complaint, sometimes block in response to it. Those are admin actions. Naturally, I don't take them w r t articles or areas where I'm involved, and a fortiori not w r t editors I have disputes with. My decline of this report wasn't a dispute. I was going to quote WP:INVOLVED, but RexxS already did. Bishonen | talk 23:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC).

A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. [...] The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times (emphasis mine).--Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

(1. reply to Bishonen) You mentioned prior history involving a "misuse (of) a quote", lending the appearance of a conflict of interest. In any event, apologies for assuming you were a guy. <wink> (2. reply to Rexx5) Given that the #3 Collect edit in question doesn't restore the article sub-section to its same appearance prior to the voluminous "preceding edit" of Mastcell and amounts to a single sentence, it's really a shady call to assertively declare it a "revert". You folks gettin' down with strict interpretations arguably harms the encyclopedia by relegating hotly debated articles to a revolving series of gargantuan snowball edits (such as Mastcall's) to multiple sections at once because nobody dares to post more than three times day. (3. To the submitter) I really hope you're happy with yourself -- wear that crummy aluminum medallion pinned to your chest with pride; you've vanquished another opponent at the lists! (Is there a "Cheap Victory" Barnstar?)--Froglich (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• My dear Mr Lich I doubt very much that there is a such a thing as a "Cheap Victory" Barnstar." For if there were, surely you would be puffing up your manly chest with several of them. What is this dreadfully vulgar "<wink>" at poor, dear Mrs Bishonen? Do you imagine that she's leaning against a lamppost, wearing fish net stockings just so that some some socially inept oaf can pass by and wink at her? That may be acceptable in your part of the world, but I can assure you that it's not in mine. At the very least an apology and a bunch of flowers is called for. Then just pray that she doesn't hit you over the head with them. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOT3RR is pretty clear What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption, and prudence dictates an editor claiming should clearly label it as such; Collect did not do that, stating instead "(start an RfC - but one of the edits goes directly against an RfC for ONE WEEK AGO - this is absolutely contrary to WP:CONSENSUS)" Furthermore, the "three" is a standard to give clueless newbies some slack, per WP:AVOIDEDITWAR a savvy Wikipedian won't get anywhere close to 3 reverts in 24 hrs. Finally, a 48 hour block is hardly "vanquishing" NE Ent 10:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was sarcasm over a cheap kill. (BTW, Mastcell had 9 edits in one hour in this particular article on the 1st; I haven't examined them, but if it should transpire that any four of them even remotely revert anything any other editor has contributed, do you suppose he'd volunteer to fall on his sword?)--Froglich (talk) 11:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. Please do your part to improve the S/N ratio here and elsewhere by doing a quick sanity check before you make snide remarks (yes, I know, bricks and glass houses - do as I say, not as I do ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Froglich: You didn't look at MastCell's edits before commenting about how they might perhaps be reverts,[76] and you can hardly have looked at this thread, let alone click on the link I'd provided, before having a vision that I might be "not a neutral onlooker given prior disputes with the editor".[77] And upon learning I'm a woman, you wink roguishly.[78] Are you intent on embarrassing yourself? Why do you talk at all? Bishonen | talk 13:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC).

To WP:BATTLEGROUND here and at other forums. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

As if you're not? Gimme a break. And rather than accepting an apology, Bishonen is apparently on hair-trigger mode this morning as well. -- This character-trait of poking and goading to generate an imprudent (and actionable) response is one I have seen in action before, which is why I'll take my leave of this now.--Froglich (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I got a 3rd party with whom you were duking it out to specify content-oriented criticisms, and I invited your content-oriented response. If you think that is what "battleground mentality" means.... then nevermind. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Page: 2014–15 RB Leipzig season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nikebrand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
1. [79]
2. [80]
3. [81]
4. [82]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
He seems to tranlate directly from German without taking into consideration grammars and proper English writing.

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours It appears that this editor was warned about edit-warring and the three-revert rule by Number 57 on 30 September but has continued to edit-war. Thus I've blocked the account for 24 hours. MastCell ^Talk 18:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The user reported have been editing and reverting again, continuing the edit-war. MbahGondrong (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

This user is also involved in edit-war on RB Leipzig page. MbahGondrong (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [83]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [84]
2. [85]
3. [86]
4. [87]

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

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

Comments: Piotrniz has edit warred in an extremely aggressive and persistent manner, and presently appears to have absolutely no interest in discussing the content he added to the Nietzsche article with other users. He has reverted both myself and Goethean multiple times, sometimes editing while logged out or from multiple IP addresses. Note that while the diffs I provided above link to edits made from IP addresses, they are clearly all made by this user. Piotrniz has tried to justify his behavior by repeatedly referring to the essay WP:ONLYREVERT, as though it overruled policies against edit warring and original research.

ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• The man has reverted edits which were actual improvements to the article, contrary to WP:ONLYREVERT. They keep doing total reverts which are not accepted by the editor and other people, instead of marking things they deny or doubt with the 'fact' template. According to WP:ONLYREVERT and the general rule of freedom of improvement and encouraging to edit, it is ImprovingWiki and his friend Goethian who are offending. 46.77.124.247 (talk) 09:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Apparently, there is disagreement over what constitutes an improvement to the article. You decided that your edits were improvements, and that therefore your views must prevail, no matter how many other editors disagreed with you. That is not how things are supposed to work here. It is really too bad if you don't like it. That essay which you keep citing, over and over, does not override actual policies such as WP:NOR. Goethean certainly seemed to think the material you added was original research. Note that although the IP above - who seems to be Piotrniz - says that my edits were not accepted by "other people", no one but Piotrniz ever restored the material he added to the article. ImprovingWiki (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Page

September 1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC) "there is a clear consensus on the project talk page."
2. 19:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC) "Reverted edits by EvergreenFir (talk) to last version by Dr. Blofeld"
3. 19:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC) "Reverted edits by EvergreenFir (talk) to last version by Dr. Blofeld"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on Talk:September 1. (TW)"
2. 19:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC) "/* October 2014 */"
3. 19:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on September 1. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Lead summary */"
2. 22:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Lead summary */"
3. 19:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Dr. Blofeld (talk) to last revision by EvergreenFir. (TW)"
4. Also see discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Days_of_the_year#Lead_summary.

Comments:

User is edit warring (not violating 3RR yet, but warring nonetheless) and ignoring WP:BRD. Claiming consensus when there is none. Also making personal attacks (diff link here) regarding this edit war. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Another personal attack (diff here). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year that my edits are constructive and a step in the right direction. Damn right I'm going to edit war and become aggressive if you insist on reverting sourced content which I took the time to write which complies with WP:MOS. This is pure vandalism, any decent editor here can see it is destructive. Arthur Rubin reverted more times, you didn't warn him did you?? Arthur Rubin is clueless how to build content and what articles require. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

OK...but then a local consensus of a project does not override the general consensus of the overall community with guidelines and policies. I am confidant you know this.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I had to do that. It's always nice to see an admin edit warring (and then throwing warnings at others for doing exactly what they have done!) - SchroCat (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You've been here long enough to know (1) you don't edit war even when correct, (2) Wikipedia is not a battleground, (3) not to become aggressive in your editing, and (4) never to make personal attacks. There is no consensus on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Days_of_the_year#Lead_summary or Talk:September 1, and discussion has been going for a whole 2 days. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You've reverted as many times as me in the last two days!!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not make the bold edits, you did. You are not following WP:BRD. It's not BRDRRRR. "That" edit you refer to was to give you the edit warring warning. I've not undone you're last warring edit; I'll let someone else do that. If you want to be remotely constructive, try discussing the issue. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19[:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You're full of shit, I did discuss the issue here after the first revert and more editors agreed that my sourced material per LEAD was an improvement. There's input by at least four seasoned regulars. by reverting you're ignoring it. And you didn't cite WP:BRD and blabla to Arthur did you?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

"You're full of shit" is a personal attack. What is going on here DB? Calm down. Please!!--Mark Miller (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Arthur and SchroCat finally started discussion after their little back and forth. You started a discussion, yes, but in under 48 hours decided to redo your bold edit despite an ongoing discussion. I don't understand your urgency here or why you refuse to allow a discussion to occur. Anyway, that Arthur or SchroCat had a back and forth yesterday does not excuse your behavior today. You started by calling Arthur a shitty editor and then proceeded to revert the edits. I reverted you once to remind you to discuss the issue, and then again since it was clear you wanted to edit war so I warned you. Upon your third revert, I initiated this post (stopping the ew and leaving your bold edit for someone else to deal with). Anyway I'm done trying to explain this to a seasoned editor. And I am full of shit at the moment, so I'm off to the toilet. Ta ta. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely he is if he insists on reverting sourced prose and violating basic editing procedure with a lead summary based on little but "dates are special, they don't need sourcing or any decent prose". The style and insistence that it doesn't need to be sourced is based on whatever convention has existed from as far back as when even Jimmy Wales was an editor here and that's saying something!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

But she's a female and therefore allowed 6RR. Eric Corbett 19:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Well that was constructive....not. Come on Eric.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin reverted three times earlier too. Did you template him and report him here Evergreen? No. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

No, SchroCat did (who was also templated). They both stopped and actually discussed the issue (without making multiple personal attacks). Again, the issue is WP:BRD... you refuse to respect the revert and discuss part and try to impose your edit. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

"They both stopped and actually discussed the issue": Can I just correct you: I walked away from such close-minded intransigence. If you (and Rubin) could stop Wikilawyering and warring for more than 30 seconds, and ask yourself: "Does the addition of a lead improve the encyclopaedia". At the end of the day, that is all that counts, not running to 3RR when someone has not breached 3RR. - SchroCat (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I refuse to respect the revert because there is clear consensus here that the sourced lead is a desirable addition from at least four very respected regulars. Why on god's green earth would you ever think a non sourced article without a lead summary would be a superior article? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, as you've already pointed out: 1. Blofeld has not violated 3RR. 2. You have edit warred to the exact same equal degree as he has. 3. (to quote you): "you don't edit war even when correct". What exactly are you trying to achieve here. If you think Blofeld should be blocked for edit warring (which I presume is the basis of your visit here), then you are equally guilty as him, and should face exactly the same action. Is that really what you are after? As I have said elsewhere: neither you, Arthur Rubin, nor any project own the page. The page, as it stands, fails the MoS guidelines: a lead would make it so. The oft-repeated claims that it is impossible to summarise the page without falling into POV are spurious in the extreme, and can be easily overcome if people are try and open their minds for a change. - SchroCat (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@SchroCat: would ANI be better since this is a personal attack + edit warring? This is not about ownership, this is about consensus and discussion. 48 hours is fast even if everyone agreed, and not everyone does. The number of edits are not the issue here, it's the timing, nature, and order of them. WP:EW makes it clear that 3rr is the bright line, but that it's not necessary to be edit warring. From WP:EW: An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement through discussion. I am not trying to override Blofeld, I'm trying (repeatedly) to get discussion going and have BRD followed. As I said on the DOTY discussion, I really don't care too much about the structure of the lead, but it clearly needs to be discussed (as I said here) as there is a project consensus to not have large leads and WP:STATUSQUO applies. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You've templated me about edit warring when you also were engaged in it and have reported me here when I could have also done the same thing to you. It's pathetic. That you even think ANI would be constructive illustrates how bloody clueless you are in dealing with content issues. "This is not about ownership, this is about consensus and discussion." -exactly, and there is already significant feeling that you're wrong to revertAny project which rejects basic editing procedures and goes against FA/FL requirements is clearly in need of being kicked into touch and brought out of the Wales-Sanger period into modern times.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

No, opening of minds will never be achieved on any dramah board: I've rarely seen any actual improvements to the encylopaedia come from visits there. The PAs are also rather minor, and the civility pillar is something of a joke. I'm afraid it is about ownership: that of the project, and it's against any form of common sense that you may wish to apply. As I have said above, please stop wikilawyering: things never improve when people use the rules as weapons against others; it goes back to what will or will not improve the encyclopaedia, not over which forum to use, or which rules are the best weapons. - SchroCat (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment: A number of people are right on the edge of making four reverts. I hope they will pause for reflection. Can anyone suggest where the best place to work out an agreed solution would be? (You disagree on whether day-of-the-year articles can have leads). Someone could open an RfC at WT:DAYS. With enough publicity for the RfC you might be able to avoid having the thread 'captured' by a local project view. Or how about WT:MOS? Does anyone have a better idea? Continuing the war will probably force admins to do something that not everyone will be happy with. EdJohnston (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Ed, Hoops can be jumped through, but when the MoS already states "List articles are encyclopedia pages consisting of a lead section followed by a list", then there isn't much more to be said that is worthwhile, to be honest. As for admins coming in, the last one that did edit warred to the point I templated him for 3RR. - SchroCat (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: The existing discussion on WT:DAYS is fairly new (less than 2 days) so it's not clear if a local consensus can be made yet or not. An RfC would be grand if no consensus is reached there. The whole reason I filed this notice was because discussion was being ignored and rushed (and the personal attacks didn't help... but sadly, as SchroCat said, a certain group of people see the civility pillar as a farce). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It's because the consensus is miles out of date (it's nine bloody years old, for crying out loud!), the entire page is unsourced, the page fails MoS in terms of sourcing, lead, quality and 101 other bits. If this was filed at WP:FLC today, I'd remove the nomination within seconds. There seems to be a large amount of straw clutching and wikilawyering going on here, not helped by edit-warring admins who are more keen to protect a mythical set of rules and a project's ownership, than in any thoughts of improving the encyclopaedia. EvergreenFir, you miscontrue what I have said slightly: it's not a "certain group of people" regarding civility - it's part and parcel of the modus operandi here - just read through the threads at AN and ANI. - SchroCat (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Now that everyone is so calm and happy this might be a good time to try to close in an agreeable way. If we can count on everyone who has commented above to *not* revert again for the next 48 hours this complaint might be closed with no action. If we have no hope of that then admins could put on the inevitable five days of full protection. Which is better? EdJohnston (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

If the same constraints also apply to Arthur Rubin, and to any other of the project members who try to "defend" their territory by deleting the only cited material on the page.... - SchroCat (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't mind it being restored to it's pre-bold status, but I'm fine so long as discussion is done. However those personal attacks really should be addressed... it seems to be a recurring problem for multiple commenters here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Another revert? Good grief! That would not be productive, constructive or an improvement, regardless of what policy or guideline you try and wikilawyering into the conversation. It's unlikely the PAs will be addressed: they are extremely minor and are not interfering with the discussion: just ignore them. - SchroCat (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Saying someone produces shitty content is not a personal attack. Haven't I told you about the boy who cried wolf before?Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 02:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure....but saying here that someone is "Full of shit" is.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@Two kinds of pork: We apparently have differing definitions of personal attacks. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mark Nah. "You're full of shit, I did discuss the issue here..." was a (vulgar) refutation of Evergreenfir's claim that there was no consensus. The good doctor could just have easily said "Your claim is unfounded, I did discuss the issue here..." which has the same exact meaning, but minus the vulgarity (and possibly minus the satisfying release). And after a quick glance at the discussion, it does seem that EvergreenFir was being disingenuous. On that talk page @Cassianto: who said At the moment, EvergreenFir you are offering nothing to the discussion and are simply hiding behind BRD. I appreciate that a consensus should be sought, but at the moment that consensus seems to be against you. Others agreed the edit was an improvement. Doc's version of events reflects what was written on the talk page. EvergreenFir's, not-so-much. EF cries "personal attack" every other edit. One of several civility crusaders who smell offense around every corner and then willingly steps in it only to cry to the world how they've been scarred for life..Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 05:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: No action. Please use WT:DAYS#Lead summary or other suitable venue to discuss this. If there are more reverts about the lead of September 1 in the next 48 hours some admin will most likely apply blocks or protection to stop the war. EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your time an consideration on this report Ed. I will not question your good faith in the decision. These things can be difficult to decide on sometimes and this one is certainly one of those times!--Mark Miller (talk) 03:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Page

Sophie Hunter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 10:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 11:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC) "Only warning: Removal of content, blanking on Sophie Hunter. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User keeps removing speedy tag even though I have warned them and told them to contest the speedy rather than remove the tag LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Done I have applied pending changes to the article and declined the Speedy as it was wholly ineligible for G5 the panda ₯’ 12:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Page: Talk:Nofel Izz (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Johnmoor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:27, 26 September 2014
2. 02:43, 27 September 2014
3. 16:13, 27 September 2014
4. 22:51, 29 September 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 15:33, 28 September 2014

Discussions on appropriate use of aticle talk page with : User_talk:Johnmoor#WP:TALK, User_talk:Johnmoor#Courtesy_notice

Comments:
Edit-warring on the talk page to interfere with an RfC. Johnmoor has been behaving as SPA and owner of this article since the end of July/early August, apparently as a paid editor. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Defence

Apparently, User:Ronz has come to AN3 again, probably, to get me to stop contributing to Nofel Izz, so as to WP:WIN even when most contributors to Talk:Nofel Izz, particularly Talk:Nofel Izz#Puffery and Talk:Nofel Izz#RfC disagree with him. When he first come to AN3, it resulted in Talk:Nofel Izz#Edit warring; his trick is to rush to AN3 to get you who disputes him to stop contributing so that he can push on with his views even when majority clearly disagree. Ronz is reporting me now for correcting him by reverting a talk page section title contributed by another user which he changed for no just reason but (probably) to hide or suppress its critical view of the RfC he started.

Here is the true picture of the edit differences:

1. 15:57, 26 September 2014
2. 22:27, 26 September 2014
3. 00:07, 27 September 2014
4. 02:43, 27 September 2014
5. 15:29, 27 September 2014
6. 16:13, 27 September 2014
7. 15:30, 28 September 2014
8. 16:36, 28 September 2014
9. 15:04, 29 September 2014
10. 22:51, 29 September 2014
11. 15:19, 30 September 2014
12. 15:49, 1 October 2014

—JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

So you defend your reverts by showing that you don't like it when someone tries to clarify discussions on a talk page. That's no defense. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Result: Both User:Ronz and User:Johnmoor are warned against any further changes to talk headers, before gaining an explicit consensus to make the change on the talk page. It is very tricky to change the parameters of an RfC once it is opened. It might be better to request that the current RfC be closed per WP:AN/RFC before raising new questions. Any closing admin who perceives that the headers were manipulated may hold that against the party responsible. Anyone who voted in a section whose header changed might need to revote. EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I've made no reverts, so if we want to address the other problems, we should do so in a proper venue.

I will refrain from making changes to section headers created by others. However, I think if we are concerned about the headers, that we block Johnmoor if he continues to use them to shift focus from improving the article to focusing on me, as he's been doing? I've been extremely patient with Johnmoor's ownership of the article and attacks against me. However, I don't think anyone should stop efforts to improve the article. As Johnmoor doesn't believe in consensus by any definition that fits our policies, I'm at a loss here. --Ronz (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Deplorably, the evidence at Talk:Nofel Izz, particularly Talk:Nofel Izz#Puffery and Talk:Nofel Izz#RfC, supported by the differences above and the history of Nofel Izz with the many discussions on my talk page (some already archived) contradicts your claims, User:Ronz — just a classic case of being WP:POINTy and desperate to WP:WIN at all costs. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

So your edit-warring is justified because you assume bad faith and ownership of the article where you are a paid editor? Are you going to continue to edit-war or not? --Ronz (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Look at who wants to lay claim to WP:NPA! I already advised you here—User talk:Bilby#Nofel Izz—to imbibe WP:FOC, and stop making accusations which you cannot substantiate; besides, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 68#Editor Johnmoor is still open. Anyway, this is characteristically—Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Problem on BLP noticeboard—User:Ronz though, who is always right and must WP:WIN. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

So, Johnmoor, you respond to accusations of personal attacks with personal attacks? Look, you both lucked out by not getting blocked - go and sin no more, and DON'T take the bait the panda ₯’ 11:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Understood, the panda; advice taken with thanks. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Page: Physical (Olivia Newton-John song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Temeku (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:48, 29 September 2014 "Added genres and sources. Please do not leave the Genre field blank."
2. 04:19, 2 October 2014 "Allmusic is a reliable source"

Comments: First he added unreliable sources on first diff, but re-added on second diff and he thought that "Allmusic is reliable source" (the point is genre sidebar is unreliable). Proof that he is not an administrator. 183.171.168.48 (talk) 07:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I re-added a source that I believed to have been overlooked previously (Allmusic.com), as the user only commented on one of the sources but removed all three of them. I did not re-add the unreliable source in question, although I did add a new source which the user has not commented on. I explained my edits in the edit summary. Looking at the edit history [90] for the article, the user has been very persistent in keeping the Genre field blank for a long time, regardless of whether sources were added or not. I did not revert or undo any edits on the page, and they only reverted mine once, and somehow it has already escalated to this. The accusing user has made no attempt to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. No edit war has taken place. I also never stated nor suggested that I was an administrator (?!?!?). Temeku (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The above IP user is now Wikihounding me, posting on various user talk pages, accusing me of being a fake admin.^[1][2][3] He/she still refuses to confront me, and keeps slightly changing their IP address.

1. 22:11, 2 October 2014 "new section"
2. 21:49, 2 October 2014 "new section"
3. 20:33, 2 October 2014

The edit history even for this page shows the user (likely with a changed IP address) even tried to remove my above message, however it was quickly restored by another admin:

1. 17:52 2 October 2014 "Block evasion"

More Wikihounding from very similar IP addresses:

1. 18:00 2 October 2014
2. 22:54 2 October 2014 "new section"
3. 06:46 2 October 2014
4. 18:28 2 October 2014
5. 18:32 2 October 2014 "new section"

This is all despite one of the users he/she reported to, Binksternet, vouching for me and telling the accusing user that I was not a fake admin, seen below:

1. 20:40 2 October 2014 "reply"

The IP user has either ignored or not read this message, as they have continued to Wikihound me on other user talk pages since Binksternet replied. Also, the article dispute (over genre and sources) has been resolved (hopefully), albeit without the IP user's help. You can see it here:

1. 19:31 2 October 2014 "Actually, we don't use Allmusic's sidebar for genres, we use the prose review. And LastFM is not a reliable source for genre."

Temeku (talk) 06:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Rangeblock needed for the Malaysian IPs that are being used to harass Temeku. Binksternet (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [91]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [92]
2. [93]
3. [94]
4. [95]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (I warned him/her via the talk page, and he/she realizes 3RR is in play at this point) Diff of report notification: [96]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARiot_V&diff=628033330&oldid=626142639

Comments:

I'm not sure how this should end up. I'm only reverting it because I believe that it is removing valuable information from the article. Riot, a long-established band recently had their oldest (founding) member Mark Reale pass away in 2012. In 2014 the band announced they would continue as Riot V, with members that were part of the band in the past. The user in question doesn't believe anything regarding the new version of the band, Riot V, belongs on the article for Riot. I personally believe that this is a case of a name change and continuation of the band, and doesn't warrant an entirely new article. The member in question claims it is disrespectful to discuss this new version of the band on the Riot page, since Mark Reale never approved of the continuation of the band (he can't at this point, as he has died). I don't see how information about Riot V is not relevant to enclose on the Riot page, as it is a direct continuation of the band, not an entirely different effort. I would prefer to keep the large amount of information about Riot V that had been previously compiled on the article. I discussed it on the talk page, but the member in question seems a bit adamant on the matter. I can definitely see where he/she's coming from, but I don't see how separating it into two articles would be sensible as the band is essentially the same group. They have the same website, the same facebook page, albeit with an added V everywhere since continuing with the same name without Mark Reale wouldn't really be polite. Vortiene (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

He/she went on to describe reasons he/she does not want discussion of the continuation on the article other than what I initially said, quoting the talk page: "Riot V is a NOT in any way a continuation of the band RIOT, they are just copying what has already been. No… they are trying to link there band to a band that has already been…thus trying to ride on some others history. When a user is looking for the band RIOT, they are looking for that band…not some other band that’s trying to sound like them and do not have any right to that bands name." Which seems to lend to the thought that his/her edits are based partially on opinion. He/she subsequently went on to discuss how the band Dio's article is not called Dio's Disciples (which is an extreme case), but made sense, and I said that this example does not justify completely removing any discussion of the continuation in Riot V, since the band Dio's article still goes on to discuss Dio's Disciples as well. If a name change of the article is what he/she's after, I'm fine with that, but voiding discussion of Riot V seems restrictive to providing accurate information on the article. Vortiene (talk) 05:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I Admit also that I previously did a move on this article, from Riot (band) to Riot V, which may have been a bit hasty and may have contributed to the formation of this edit war. I'm completely open to moving it back to Riot (band), but I believe completely avoiding discussion of the band's continuation in Riot V is a bit draconian, as it is recent, relevant information regarding the band. Vortiene (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Jacktrobe is also a long-time editor of the article on Mark Reale. I don't think it's out of the question that his edits removing content related to the band's development after the death of Mark Reale are based on the POV of a fan of Mark Reale, and not a neutral point of view. He adamantly believes that the band is nothing without Mark Reale, that it is a completely different venture, and should be discussed elsewhere. He believes this such that he refuses to discuss inclusion of Riot V at all, despite apparent similarity outside of the departure of Mark Reale. Vortiene (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

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

[97]

Previous version reverted to: [98]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [99]
2. [100]
3. [101]
4. [102]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (I warned him/her via the talk page, and he/she realizes 3RR is in play at this point) Diff of report notification: [103]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [104]

Comments:
Use he or she wants to change the title of the band RIOT and compare them to RIOT V that is not really the same band at all. Pertaining to the comment “which is an extreme case” is not extreme at all but factual and is the same issue here.

The user admits to changing the article title but he does not have that right does he or she? I don’t care much about what text he or she post but saying there the same is false., clearly it’s a different band without any original members and the name is RIOT V not RIOT. Jacktobe (talk) 06:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, anyone has the right to change the name of an article. Whether this was a good idea or not is where discussion occurs (Although it is true that controversial changes should be discussed on the talk page, which is what I originally attempted, and received no response.) Moreover, I did not break 3RR within a 24 hour period. Vortiene (talk) 12:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Submitter blocked per the report above. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Page

Noah's Ark (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC) "Made it better"
2. Consecutive edits made from 12:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC) to 12:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
   1. 12:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC) "fixed it"
   2. 12:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC) "fixed it"
   3. 12:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 12:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC) "Fixed grammar"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Noah's Ark. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ new section"

Comments:

Clue bot vandalism warning link. Warning by other editor diff. Welcome with reminder of PAG diff. SPA contribs that doesn't seem to be here to improve the encyclopedia. Given recent indef of editor with similar (although different) edit Brianmathe I wonder if a check user is also in order. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: User warned on their talk page of the prospect of a WP:NOTHERE block. They have made no more edits since 1 October. EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Page: Inversion therapy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.18.93.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and RichardWilcox20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inversion_therapy&diff=627358520&oldid=627143503

Diffs of the user's reverts: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inversion_therapy&diff=627358520&oldid=627099336

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inversion_therapy&action=history

User at IP 86.18.93.134 also using username RichardWilcox20 repeatedly vandalizes the Inversion Therapy and Inversion Tables pages with irrelevant links to his personal affiliate site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.115.113.216 (talk • contribs)

• Comment: I formatted this report, combining to reduce redundancy. I take no stance on any part of the substance of this report. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Result: Article has been semiprotected one week by User:Rjd0060. Report again if you perceive that User:RichardWilcox20 is continuing to revert, since a block may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 00:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: If the user continues to vandalize the page, I strongly suggest you making a report here: [105] These 2 users used each other to vandalize the page, if you report it to them, the account (not the IP), will be blocked indefinite and the IP for at least 1 month. The IP is based on Europe England, Sweden and using the DSL cable. See [106] — Preceding unsigned comment added by KYR SMARTER (talk • contribs) 21:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Page: Yenisei Kirghiz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) }
User being reported: OneGreek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) , aka 98.116.132.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [107]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [108]
2. [109]
3. [110]
4. [111]
5. [112]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• [113]

Comments:
User continues to edit war even after being warned in descriptions and on his talk page regarding WP:ERA policy. User has been asked politely to discuss the issue but has not responded and continues to edit war. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

This should be in the Sock puppet investigations [114] I strongly suggest you, creating a investigation because this user used his account and IP to vandalize the page. KYR SMARTER (talk) 23:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

You "strongly suggest" I what? Apparently an operative word was left out. The user has continued to edit war several times under the name OneGreek and twice under the IP address. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Page: Ikaw Lamang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: List of telenovelas of ABS-CBN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ElNiñoMonstruo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Edition of ElNiñoMonstruo in Ikaw Lamang
2. Edition of ElNiñoMonstruo in List of telenovelas of ABS-CBN

Comments:
Hello I come back here, because ElNiñoMonstruo continuous reversing my edits without giving any reason. Whenever I try to leave a message on the discussion. Only do this. I'm trying to add a related template telenovelas ABS-CBN in List of telenovelas of ABS-CBN‎‎, but ElNiñoMonstruo reverts my edit without giving any reason. In Ikaw Lamang explain in my summaries of issues and each issue that I also reverted my edits.--McVeigh (talk) 01:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Page

South African Republic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user has just come out of a week long block for edit warring and has simply picked up exactly where he/she left off - "a luta continua".

Given that none of the advice and warnings about proper editorial behaviour has had the slightest corrective effect at all, and the rather long record of problematic behaviour by this editor over more than a year, I'm of the opinion that an indefinite block may be in order. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not the one who started this. Zarpboer has repeatedly reverted my edits and ignored my sources. I haven't even had time to add all of them before my edit was reverted. Placing the blame entirely on me isn't just. It is true that I have made mistakes in the past. I won't deny that, but I have worked to improve myself and to do better. If you punish me for this transgression, then it follows that you should punish the other guilty party, though in my opinion, the other party is to blame for this conflict. If one needs evidence of said conflict, look no further than the talk page of the article in question. I am not an instigator, nor was I the first person to add the information Zarpboer deleted. I merely set out to restore the information deleted by said user. Zarpboer deleted entire sections of the article without making any discernable attempt to find or verify sources for the information the user deleted. When said user deleted the edits again, I tried to discuss it with him on the talk page, where he not only criticized my work and sources, but also refused to reach a compromise. I eventually decided to simply preserve the dates in the infobox in order to satisfy the user, but they wouldn't even accept that. Around this time another user, going by the name of Mitsukorina (though I may have spelled it incorrectly, as the name looks Japanese, a language which I am not fluent in) took my side and joined the discussion, only to be met with criticism and a stubborn refusal to reach a consensus. I tried to keep the discussion civil, but the users constant criticism and accusations tried my patience. Mitsukorina also appears to have also lost his or her patience. I must apologize for not coming to you for help in the matter, but the last time I tried to report someone (after giving them a final warning), they beat me to it after and I got banned. Since then I have made no attempt to report other users. Now, in the face of such troubling accusations, and facing possibility of being indefinitly banned from a site I love and have contributed much to, I beg you to show some sympathy and mercy. Thank you. Toolen (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Page: 2014 Hong Kong protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dark Liberty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [115]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [116]
2. [117]
3. [118]
4. [119]

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

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

Comments:

Sorry, can't follow these instructions. User is Dark Liberty (talk).

Page is 2014 Hong Kong protests.

User blanked sections yesterday with incorrect edit summaries, and was reverted by other editors. He started blanking sections again today and was reverted twice by another editor and twice by me. Minutes before he started blanking today, an IP blanked the same material first, which seems likely to also be him. zzz (talk) 06:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC) Now user STSC has 3 times inserted unreferenced claims into the infobox. zzz (talk) 07:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Page

Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

RRoyce624 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC) "Selectively restoring factual information, having regard to SummerPhD's input."
2. Consecutive edits made from 01:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC) to 02:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
   1. 01:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 628143845 by Eustress (talk) - Historical information is contained in the underlying citations. Eustress was the one who vandalized this entire page some months ago, and was reverted"
   2. 01:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 628142951 by Eustress (talk) It was the first business school affiliated with a broader University."
   3. 01:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 628144313 by Eustress (talk) 1980s to Present would be more accurate."
   4. 02:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC) "This doesn't apply specifically to Wharton, noting points made by DMacks about other schools at the University."
3. 04:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC) "Please check the citations - each one validates multiple pieces of the information, even if not listed immediately thereafter."
4. 21:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC) "Interesting - you deleted the valid citations (I.e. first collegiate business school, high yield bonds), and inserted 'citation needed?) Your June 11 vandalism also raises concerns, and similar style to adieubask (now banned)"
5. 21:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC) "Additional citations and factual information. Updated article talk page. Feel free to discuss further."
6. 22:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC) "/* 1970 to present */"
7. 22:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC) Reverted again

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Issues with History section */"

Comments:

Hello, you can verify that the edits do not violate the 3 reversion rule, as several of them (including 628259566|21:53, 4 October 2014) are not reversions at all, but addition of new content taking into account suggestions. This focused on the research contributions of professors, and added new citations. Also, there is active participation on the article's talk page, which can also be verified. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by RRoyce624 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The fourth revert ([121]) did include material from previous reverts (compare to [122]). User is an SPA and had been warned and reverted by Eustress, an admin. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Acroterion (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Page: Eleanor Elkins Widener (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: EEng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [123]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [124]
2. [125]
3. [126]
4. [127]
5. [128]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [129]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [130](his user talk page)

Comments:

User:EEng keeps adding the nobots template after my comments that the issues have been fixed and there is not reason to prevent bots actions on that page. This is a typical situation where Eeng reverts edits on pages they edit. This is not the only pages they behave like that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours by Bgwhite. Stickee (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Page

Dennis Toeppen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 02:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC) to 02:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
   1. 02:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "formatting change"
   2. 02:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "edit warring? yes, please do stop."
2. Consecutive edits made from 02:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC) to 02:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
   1. 02:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "why are you reverting my good-faith contributions?"
   2. 02:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "i think you should take a trip over to the company article talk section to learn about appropriate division of information between the two."
   3. 02:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 02:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "whitewashing? there is a separate article for the bus company."
4. 02:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "replace pejorative term with more appropriate wording. acpa was passed after this man registered his domains and fought legal battles."
5. Consecutive edits made from 02:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC) to 02:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
   1. 02:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 02:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "remove redundant statements"
   3. 02:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Bus Transportation */ this belongs in article about the company"
   4. 02:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "this is not true, is it?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Was just preparing to report this IP user myself. Seemingly attempting to whitewash BLP article, possible conflict of interest based on statements made in edit summaries. Refuses to stop edit warring and reverting. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Update: Based on this comment from the IP "And finally, Wikipedia is all about teamwork. It's not about winning or delivering a "Checkmate!". Editors must work together to build a reliable encyclopedia, not try to prove themselves to be "better" than others", seems to be a sockpuppet, possibly of a blocked user. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours by User:Gilliam. EdJohnston (talk) 03:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Pages:

2014 American-led intervention in Iraq (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and

2014 military intervention against ISIS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to: N/A - POV editing to push UK over Australia

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2014_American-led_intervention_in_Iraq#United_Kingdom_subject_to_the_bottom_of_the_listings (see clear stated intent to edit war, evidence of past edit warring, and note single purpose account)
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_American-led_intervention_in_Iraq&diff=prev&oldid=627969785 (Eat it)
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/VeryangryBrit (many contributions have not been constructive)
4. His edit warring was part of the reason this page was blocked yet we have:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2014_military_intervention_against_ISIS#UK_military_involvement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2014_military_intervention_against_ISIS#Who_on_earth_is_running_this_page.3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2014_military_intervention_against_ISIS#UK_and_it.27s_leaders_should_be_placed_under_the_US.2C_ahead_of_Australia_and_other_nations_who_it_is_behind.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] Warned by User:SantiLak and Kudzu1 in link #1 above

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] See links above. I previously cleaned up his unconstructive edits but did not personally discuss.

Comments:

This situation may get interesting now that the lock is off 2014_military_intervention_against_ISIS I having no personal feelings about this, just bringing it up so that more experienced editors/Admins are aware and can take whatever action is appropriate. Maybe a warning...? Legacypac (talk) 05:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• I would like to defend myself. I continually edited as I believe there is a legitimate anti-British bias that is affecting the quality of the page in question. Many other users back me up and I have evidence that only one day ago there was a blatantly inaccurate listing of the British contribution and all I did was tried to amend it to benefit the quality of the article. Why is that the people who kept putting Britain at the bottom of the rankings were not reported for bias and edit warring? It takes two to tango. VeryangryBrit (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Warned. If User:VeryangryBrit continues to make loud promises to edit war like the ones at Talk:2014 American-led intervention in Iraq#United Kingdom subject to the bottom of the listings. then a block is likely. ("Yeah and I just reverted your revert. Until this article is locked I will keep doing it.") I don't see that he made any actual reverts on either article for the past 36 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The user adds the candidates from Tonga and Samoa that are referenced by various web pages, BUT have not been confirmed by the official website of Miss Earth ---> ^[1]. Leaves a message on his page explaining the issue, but did not respond and instead reverted changes despite explained. Also, not only reverses the above information but melts intermediate revisions of article which affects credibility. Help please. Jaam0121 (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Page

Epistle to the Ephesians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 628249921 by JudeccaXIII (talk) I believe it is, and it's sourced"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Epistle_to_the_Ephesians&action=history

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 20:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Epistle to the Ephesians */ new section"

Comments:

IP address is violating WP:MOS/WTW, WP:LABEL. I warned the IP and reverted, but I was reverted by a newly registered account:Tikki tikki tempo, I believe to be a sock puppet of the IP. JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one month due to apparent sockpuppetry. But consider using the talk page yourself. EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This was unfair, and not at all close to edit warring. I am the IP, after I saw one particular user lord it over this article, I created an account (as wiki recommended. Still, not anywhere near the wiki warning for sock puppets or edit warring. I reverted twice! that's it! and not I cannot edit this article for a whole month! Please take of the protection. The user who reported me reverted more than me. Tikki-Tembo (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Page

Grounds for Sculpture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 628395994 by NeilN (talk)"
2. 22:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Exit sign. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Didn't break the bright line but has been edit warring across articles to add his snapshot as the lead picture. NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

And continuing to edit war as this report was made. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. Now they have in fact crossed the bright line, on no less than three articles. Bishonen | talk 23:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC).

Page: 2014 Hong Kong protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Signedzzz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [131]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [132]
2. [133]
3. [134]
4. [135]
5. [136]
6. [137]
7. [138]
8. [139]
9. [140]
10. [141]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [142] [143]

Comments:

User Signedzzz seems to be owning the page by reverting and removing the edits that are not to his/her liking. Within a 24 hr period from 4/10 to 5/10, he/she had made more than 10 reverts. STSC (talk) 09:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess I'm supposed to respond? I had 3 conflicts with this editor:

• He kept adding this [US Openly Approves Hong Kong Chaos it Created to External links
• He kept altering the infobox, removing protest sites (or, later, just marking them as "abandoned" or whatever it was he said): [144], note the edit summary, "Infobox - ce". Surely an experienced editor like him, who knows what "ce" means, also knows that removing the most vital information from an infobox (right at the top of the page, getting 20,000+ views per day) is nothing like "copyediting"? This was a particularly important revert, since Hong Kongers would have been just getting up, and wondering whether to go to work or to protest, quite plausibly - it did occur to me that it was his intention to convey false information for this very reason. Why else, I wonder, did he persist? Next one, [145] "According to the fact" (not a fact in any source, reliable or otherwise) [146] ES "ce"!. [147] ES "show us the sources"- like I have to prove the sites still exist ! [148] here instead of removing 3 of the 6 sites, he inserts the text "cleared by 3 October" (ie the previous day) next to them. At this point, since no one else is noticing the problem with all the crowd of unimportant edits going on, instead of reverting I have the bright idea of adding "citation needed" in the infobox next to "cleared by 3 October". Eventually, someone removed the tag along with his uncited "cleared by 3 October" - and it was only after this that he opened the talk page section, where he implied that I had "no right to argue" because I was, in his opinion, "sitting in an armchair in Europe". (As a particularly ingenious editor pointed out, he is forced to endure a harsh existence in Adelaide, South Australia).
• He, and the editor Dark Liberty, who you guys were meanwhile taking your time about blocking (see section, above) objected to:

"The People's Daily stated in a front page commentary on 4 October that the protests 'could lead to deaths and injuries and other grave consequences.'" The objection was to the word "stated". (the source, NYT, used "said"). He felt that this was POV, and insisted that "warned" or "warned the protestors" should replace it (although it wasn't addressed to the protestors, but rather mainland Chinese readers, as I patiently explained in edit summaries). Again, he only decided to discuss this particular issue on the talk page after he had given up. The most bizarre argument I have had yet, over my reason for thinking that "stated" is a neutral word. He accused me of having some dark ulterior motive, of course. I failed to get annoyed, since this was merely surreal after what had happened earlier.

I hope that's not too much detail. Let me know if it's not enough. I might be away for a while, now, though. zzz (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment: User:Signedzzz was merely maintaining the page in the face of two editors pushing POV. User:Dark Liberty was suspended for edit warring. User:STSC has a long history of obfuscating potentially controversial edits within convoluted article restructuring (note "Treaty of Nanking" changed to "British occupation", for example), or as User:Signedzzz noted, through an innocuous-sounding "c/e" edit summary. Nearly all his/her edits on Hong Kong subjects ultimately serve to promote a specific political worldview. And it is pretty rich of him to try to shut up another editor by accusing them of "sitting in an armchair in Europe" and not knowing the local situation when he doesn't live in the city himself yet inexplicably holds an intense interest in imposing his politics (and little else) on Hong Kong-related articles (and other controversial subjects related to China). It is also hypocritical of STSC to accuse anyone of "owning" a page when STSC tends to enforce his/her political edits through blunt force reverting, for example on the Hong Kong and Occupy Central with Love and Peace pages. When I run into this sort of dispute with him, I usually give up. User:STSC appears to have reported User:Signedzzz here because User:Signedzzz didn't give up. The "US Openly Approves Hong Kong Chaos it Created" shouldn't be spammed on the protest pages unless it is reflected by a reliable source, which it presently isn't. Citobun (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Page: Renewable resource (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Christophe Krief (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [149]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renewable_resource&diff=628214900&oldid=628209869 Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [150]
2. [151]
3. [152]
4. [153]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] [154]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [155] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serten (talk • contribs) 15:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

The four links are to versions, not to diffs. I see only 3 reverts, since the second and third versions are contiguous and the third is the result of a minor edit (removed one insignificant word). The reverts are #1 #2 #3. So 3RR was not broken even though this looks like an edit war in the making (Christophe Krief keeps removing a source that Serten keeps inserting). I'd prefer someone else handles this since I have editing interactions with Serten on other pages. Zero^talk 05:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• I did my own study of the edit history (without relying on the four diffs offered by the submitter) and saw four removals of the German-language source on 4 October, starting with this removal. User:Serten reverted three times. User:Christophe Krief has now returned to editing but did not respond to my advice that he come to the noticeboard and promise to stop warring. Serten would be wise to wait for consensus before making any more controversial edits. If Christophe still won't respond here a block seems appropriate. Unless admins do something it seems that a fight on this article will continue. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• Thnx for the effort. Its my first turn here, so sorry if I misunderstood the procedure. With regard to the article, I provided some English sources beyound the University of Cologne study. User:Christophe Krief seems, in my eyes, to stay in a soapboxing mode, compare quote 'If too many cows are killed to make the beef that you eat, then there will be not enough milk for your breakfast and it could lead to extinction.' I think that needs to be adressed, as any fruitful cooperation better not involves my breakfast. Serten (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC) I assume that he could use a short break, but its more important to remind him that a) WP is not a Webforum and b) valid sources may have different origins. In the case of Talk:After_Saturday_Comes_Sunday#Suggested_change_to_article_lede, where Zero and I are involved an Arab 19th century study helped to improve an article lede. Serten (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Hi there. First I must say that I have worked on this article for a while with other editors who already had problems with Serten regarding this article. Please note that Serten forced the article towards a very different definition of "Renewable Resource" without following any consensus and by removing important informations. Note that I am a long time editor and that I am not arguing for the sake of it. I understand that Serten has a point of view on the subject and I accept it. However, his position seems to be the only one that he accepts and understands. Note that I have not removed any of his insertion except for the lead reference which is fully in German. A reference that many of us cannot understand. This is the English version of Wikipedia and there is no need for a reference in German, especially in the lead. Researches should have been official translated prior to be used, unless the subject relates to a foreign matter.

I am trying to improve articles, I respect others' point of view when they are pertinent. I did not consider my action as an edit war. I was only working on the article. I was reinserting information with references that Serten had deliberately removed after imposing his point of view to other editors. I could bring some of these editors to this page if necessary, but I would prefer sparing their time for more important matters. There are 2 conflicts with Serten in relation to this article - 1) Serten is hijacking the article towards Non-Food Renewable Resources, I have worked on the article to provide a full definition of Renewable resources. - 2) Serten is using the article to promote a German point of view. I have no problem with that, but the use of a reference in German in the lead is misplaced. Even if Serten was right when he states that the German are leading in this field, many Americans, English, or translated foreign researches will be more appropriate in the English version of this article.

I may have broken a protocol on Wikipedia, and if so, I apologise. If I did, it was only for the sake of improving the article. To solve the present issue, I think that administrators should tell us if it is appropriate to have the first reference of the article, or a reference from the lead in German language which is understood only by a minority of English speakers, when the article has no particular relation with Germany or any German subject, while many references exist in English. Thanks in advance for your assistance. --Christophe Krief (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

We have a separate entry on Energy transition in Germany, the largest project of its kind world wide, in so far I doubt German and (often German driven) European current research should be left out. I m not hijacking the article towards Non-Food Renewable Resources, whoever wants to preach about Food can do that in the appropriate talk pages. I am confining this one article based on current studies, so my - of cause hvalbiff only - breakfast might be excluded. vennelig hilsen Serten (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Serten, I have fully revised the article because it became incoherent due to your position which focuses on non-food renewable resources. The following insertion of yours that I preserved in the article: "Besides fresh meat and milk, which is as a food item not topic of the article" (see "historical role) is now included in a "non-food" sub-section. Please act and speak in good faith; you have hijacked the article. If you have something to say about the German position on this subject, and if it is really relevant (which I doubt), so create a sub-section about the German point of view which, if I believe what you are telling us, is so advanced compared to the rest of the world. I have lost enough time on this matter. I had a similar problem with the article on "Deconstruction" before... Unfortunately some articles cannot be saved. I leave it up to the administrators to decide about this one. --Christophe Krief (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Both editors warned. If either party reverts again without first getting a consensus on the talk page they may be blocked. User:Christophe Krief is advised to get an opinion at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if he truly thinks a German-language source can't be used; he is unlikely to find any support there. EdJohnston (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Page: List of Muslim scientists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.170.129.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Muslim_scientists&diff=628391761&oldid=628268760
2. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Muslim_scientists&diff=prev&oldid=627894879
3. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Muslim_scientists&diff=prev&oldid=627870642
4. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Muslim_scientists&diff=prev&oldid=627856692

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [156]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] mutiple attempts at User talk:76.170.129.159

Comments:
11 reverts by a new user? doesn't understand wiki editing do not know if coaching will help. J8079s (talk) 01:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two months. Edit warring and vandalism by a variety of IPs since 1 September. EdJohnston (talk) 02:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Page

List of Viking metal bands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 628343832 by Rhododendrites (talk)For a band to be accepted, you must prove they play black/nordic folk metal, you know the drill."
2. 07:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 628289192 by Rhododendrites (talk)STOP adding bands who blatantly do not play Viking Metal. Viking Metal (as sourced) is nordic folk + black metal."
3. 23:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC) "What part of offshoot of black metal and folk metal' is too hard to understand? Do not add a band if they lack these essential elements. 'because other websites say so' does not cut it. You need to actually use logic."
4. 08:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 627023262 by 3family6 (talk) A source is not reliable if it considers a band that possesses neither black metal or nordic folk music 'viking metal'. Viking lyrics =/= Viking Metal."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Regarding List of viking metal bands */ capfix"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Despite explanations in edit summaries, on the user's talk page, and on the article talk page, the user is not understanding core Wikipedia policies of WP:NOR and WP:V (i.e. there are several cited sources saying certain bands belong on this list, but the user repeatedly removes them based on his/her view that sources don't matter if the bands simply don't belong. I have no stake in whether or not these bands are included, but this approach is purely disruptive. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I have been removing bands that have failed to be proven to play Viking Metal and contradict the sourced definition of Viking Metal (Black Metal modeled after Bathory with influence from Nordic Folk music). I am trying to prevent the page being vandalized.

The 'sources' for Amon Amarth and Unleashed do not prove they play Viking Metal. Look over them. These bands are lazily labelled viking metal regarding lyrical content, where as Viking Metal is a musical genre, and musical genres are not defined by lyrical themes, if AA and Unleashed are to be accepted, a source must be provided that AA and Unleashed's musical style contains that of black metal and nordic folk influence, NOT because they have Viking lyrics. If these bands lyrics were not about Vikings, you would be laughed at if you called them 'viking metal'. Amon Amarth and Unleashed remain Melodic/Death Metal.

A 'source' described Falconer's 'Viking Metal origins', but what wasnt explained is that these origins were actually in a separate band, Mithotyn, This 'source' then stated that Falconer were returning to their origins as Viking Metal.... simply because the lyrics were in Swedish... I am sorry, but changing the language does NOT change the genre. This is like me calling Galneryus 'ninja metal' because their lyrics are in Japanese. Absolutely ridiculous. Falconer remain Folk/Power Metal.

Why the addition of Mortiis continues to plague this page is absolutely beyond ridiculous. Havard Ellefson formed an INDUSTRIAL ROCK/AMBIENT band Mortiis after he grew sick of playing Metal in Emperor. Yes, Mortiis arent even Metal, for a band to be Viking Metal, they must first at least be Metal, let alone Black Metal. This 'source' that somehow finds a way to sneak in the black metal/nordic folk tag into a band that possesses ZERO of these elements is ridiculous, and should not be considered a reliable source. After a decent search, i have found zero other sources that consider Mortiis 'viking metal'. I understand the 'no original research' policy, but surely this does not mean you are not allowed to use basic logic. No one with an understanding of both Viking Metal or Mortiis would label them 'viking metal'. It is simply ignorance.

The Viking Metal band page is an absolute mess, an embarrassment to Wikipedia's attempt at accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.186.150 (talk) 04:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. The IP user has persuaded themselves that their definition of Viking Metal is correct and they have been continuing to revert to force their definition on the article. The above reply from the IP does not show any willingness to accept consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Page: Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 unofficial disappearance theories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Amt000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [157]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [158]

After Amt000's previous edit war and reversion, [159], he's decided to start reverting again in an example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [160]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [161]

Comments:

Origamite^ⓣⓒ 17:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 week. EdJohnston (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Page: Michigan–Ohio State football rivalry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Campb292 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [162]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [163]
2. [164]
3. [165]
4. [166]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [167]

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [168]

Comments:

User persists in changing content, specifically, treatment of an officially "vacated victory", contrary to Talk page consensus as well as broader consensus established after considerable discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football/Archive_9#Dealing_with_vacated_awards.2C_records_and_wins. Edits have exceeded 3RR. In light of this extensive background, which the user does not acknowledge, this has also transformed from a case of possible GF - overinsistence, to vandalism. JohnInDC (talk) 11:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Now also reported at WP:AIV. JohnInDC (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

… and recommended for resolution here. JohnInDC (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Done It's by no means vandalism, however, blocked for 48hrs for edit-warring. Not happy to see a failure to "Welcome" this apparently new editor the panda ₯’ 20:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Page

Helen Hooven Santmyer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Choor monster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 628393968 by Winkelvi (talk) Reverted bad faith reversion: see WP:FNNR for actual policy"
2. 22:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "Reverted revision 628392367 by Winkelvi (talk), more sources added, more to come"
3. Consecutive edits made from 22:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC) to 22:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
   1. 22:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "Changes since here are definitely incorrect. Statements on weakness, obscurity, Hollywood, chance are based on RS."
   2. 22:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "/* top */ No OR, summarizing RS only"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Helen Hooven Santmyer. (TW)"
2. 22:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "/* October 2014 */ +"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Lack of reliable sources */ new section"

Comments:

Just keeps reverting, refuses to place inline citations, refuses to take part in article talk page discussion started as a result of reverts. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Beware of flying sticks comes to mind. Just check page history. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• Response:What User:Winkelvi hasn't mentioned is that he is simply engaged in revenge-harassment regarding the Talk:Chelsea Clinton and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive208#Children names in BLPs discussions. Nor does he mention that he liked to drop unnecessary but purposely hostile warning tags on my user page related to those discussions. Nor does he mention that when told to leave my talk page along, he rudely announced he planned to keep up his harassment tagging, and when some anon proved him a hypocrite complete with diff on his talk page, he reverted the anon and then reported the anon for vandalism/harassment, going so far as to cite a 2-year old edit by the anon as grounds for a possible checkuser.
• Nor does User:Winkelvi understand what a "reversion" is. Adding content, in this case, 3 RS references, is not a reversion. Nor is he aware of policy. There is no requirement to footnote obsessively, or even footnote: WP:FNNR. And he then comes rushing here to report me within minutes for not taking part in the discussion that very second.
• It's pretty much bad faith harassment on his part. Choor monster (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't mention something that isn't happening based on an accusation that is untrue. The accusations by Choor monster in his statements above don't even deserve to be addressed as they are rife with misrepresentation and untruth. It appears to me, that rather than address his own edit warring behavior and refusal to discuss the matter on the article's talk page, he is trying to get this report dismissed by making something "stick" to me. I will say in regard to his accusation that this report is based on disagreements we've had in the past: my edits and improvements to the Santmyer article have nothing to do with the Clinton article or Choor monster. There is absolutely no harassment occurring. If he truly believes what he is accusing me of to be accurate, he needs to either produce diffs as proof his non-AGF claims or stikeout his dishonest mis-characterizations and exaggerations.

The article in question has no inline citations to support claims made at the article, and there should be at least some. There was more than one instance of peacocking and claims made with no cites to support those claims. These edits stood for quite some time before I worked on the article today. For the betterment of the article, inline citations need to be placed within the article to improve the article's verifiability and standing as a biography. As it was prior to my edits, the article was basically a puff-piece full of POV and unverified claims. Choor monster's reverts and edit warring have now taken it (in part) back to that status. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I will not bother with the liar-liar-pants-on-fire comments of Winkelvi. They are childish nonsense. However, his characterization of the Helen Hooven Santmyer article at the time he found it is highly, grossly inaccurate. It was a puff-piece before I started editing it, and I've been reducing it, slowly, while added new, more significant material. His statement there were no inline citations is just a bald-faced lie, there were about 6 or 7. Winkelvi is also ignorant of actual policy and guidelines: the citations were all there to support the claims, but not every phrase and sentence was tagged.

And I repeat, I do not believe for a moment Winkelvi was editing the article in order to improve it, but was looking for an edit-war and an excuse to revenge-harass. The discussion here on this noticeboard is simply a pointless waste of time, and a ridiculous bit of hypocrisy [169]. As I mentioned, he had (earlier that day or the previous day) abused the vandalism noticeboard, reporting an anon for posting snark on his talk page and calling for a checkuser. This seems no different. Choor monster (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I see revert-warring by both parties here, and the logical outcome would be to block both editors. I urge both of them to respond to the complaint and promise not to revert again until consensus is found. Reverting article-improvement tags such as {{refimprove}} and {{original research}} is quite conspicuous and is likely to receive unfavorable attention from admins. A tag is not an emergency that justifies removing it before discussion can be held. EdJohnston (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand. A tag says please add references, and I have added 6 of them. The tag has served its purpose. What discussion is needed? Choor monster (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Tags need consensus. It's not in your sole discretion whether the article is adequately referenced. If the matter is controversial you should persuade others to agree with you that the referencing has been fixed. EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

But it is worth mentioning that some editors use these tags to perpetuate disputes and use them as badges of shame in articles. All articles can be improved. If there are a few statements that require sources, editors should use the inline {{cn}} template instead. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• To Ed: I still do not understand. There was no consensus to put in the tag in the first place, either. Are tags exempt from WP: BRD, or at least its spirit? And how can I achieve consensus regarding references with a person who claims that were no inline citations whatsoever, when there were NINE? (The first two cites also cover most of the points in the main section, and both are linked and easily accessible.) Cwobeel has instead made the objective claim that the main section has no in-line citations, and it would be improved by putting them there. Choor monster (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment:Sorry, didn't see the Admin request/instructions prior to making reverts at the article today (the reverts were reasonable, and in no way edit warring behavior, just keeping the article on track and in accordance with the MOS). Glad to see the references needed tag in the Body of the article. I believe it was needed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Both editors warned. The next person who undoes any change by the other party may be blocked without notice, unless consensus was previously obtained on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Page: Pound Puppies (2010 TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.181.254.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pound_Puppies_%282010_TV_series%29&oldid=628059710

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pound_Puppies_%282010_TV_series%29&diff=628126236&oldid=628059710
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pound_Puppies_%282010_TV_series%29&diff=628283948&oldid=628156167
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pound_Puppies_%282010_TV_series%29&diff=628303860&oldid=628287128
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pound_Puppies_%282010_TV_series%29&diff=628405665&oldid=628375100

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A67.181.254.125&diff=628434291&oldid=622142517

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APound_Puppies_%282010_TV_series%29&diff=628434343&oldid=602339547

Comments:
Pound Puppies, the 2010 cartoon, ended in 2013. This is a fact. The show is no longer airing any episodes on the Hub, or if that isn't true, then production definitely ended on it more than a year ago. This one user, Anonymous IP 67.181.254.125, started this revert war in May 2014, but I seem to remember identical edits coming in from other IPs before then. The disagreement about the show ending started back in December 2013. There was one other revert of this edit, before I came in with two tweets from a writer on the show and one of the directors. These tweets confirmed that no new episodes were planned to be made at the time. Seeing that no episodes have yet been made since then, it is logical to conclude the show has ended all production. I am asking for a mod or an administrator to either semi-protect the Pound Puppies (2010 TV series) page, or block this person's IP from editing it. Thank you. Dogman15 (talk) 05:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Question about verifiability: Dogman15, you've reverted to say that November 16, 2013 was the last broadcast episode. Have you got a WP:Reliable source to that effect? Putting your own inferences into the article is not allowed under our WP:Original research policy. EdJohnston (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

First of all, are you implying that 72.129.141.161 is my IP address? Because it's not. I don't live in Wisconsin. Secondly, what kind of proof do you want? Dan Vs. is another show on The Hub that has most certainly ended its run. Is there a difference between "last brand new episode being aired" and "last episode aired on the channel ever"? If so, this was never clearly stated anywhere. And who does this Anonymous IP think he is? Do I have to contact The Hub directly through customer service to get an answer? Dogman15 (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Page: Problem of evil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2.26.42.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [170]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [171]
2. [172]
3. [173]
4. [174]
5. [175]
6. [176]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [178][179]

Comments:

The anon IP (who has clearly also edited earlier under other IPs) is insistent on adding a particular perspective on the article topic to the lede, sourced only to what appears to be a personal website. I have tried to explain policy, and have explained that edit-warring is unacceptable, but the IP seems more concerned with bringing "confidence in the idea of the meaningfulness of existence brought about by the goodness of God" to readers than with conforming to policy, and is evidently going to edit-war until blocked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Since it looks like the IP is determined to promote their POV, I've semi=-protected the article for three weeks. Acroterion (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [180]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [181]
2. [182]
3. [183]
4. [184]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [185]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [186]

Comments: Piotrniz has edit warred in an extremely aggressive and persistent manner, and presently appears to have absolutely no interest in discussing the content he added to the Nietzsche article with other users. He has reverted both myself and Goethean multiple times, sometimes editing while logged out or from multiple IP addresses. Note that while the diffs I provided above link to edits made from IP addresses, they are clearly all made by this user. Piotrniz has tried to justify his behavior by repeatedly referring to the essay WP:ONLYREVERT, as though it overruled policies against edit warring and original research.

ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• The man has reverted edits which were actual improvements to the article, contrary to WP:ONLYREVERT. They keep doing total reverts which are not accepted by the editor and other people, instead of marking things they deny or doubt with the 'fact' template. According to WP:ONLYREVERT and the general rule of freedom of improvement and encouraging to edit, it is ImprovingWiki and his friend Goethian who are offending. 46.77.124.247 (talk) 09:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Apparently, there is disagreement over what constitutes an improvement to the article. You decided that your edits were improvements, and that therefore your views must prevail, no matter how many other editors disagreed with you. That is not how things are supposed to work here. It is really too bad if you don't like it. That essay which you keep citing, over and over, does not override actual policies such as WP:NOR. Goethean certainly seemed to think the material you added was original research. Note that although the IP above - who seems to be Piotrniz - says that my edits were not accepted by "other people", no one but Piotrniz ever restored the material he added to the article. ImprovingWiki (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• You filed an edit-warring report on October 1 but the incident occurred on September 20-21. This likely closed without action because the info was stale. After all, what good does it do to block now? There isn't a current edit war, right? I have semi-protected the article for one month and added PC1 indefinitely to curtail the obvious IP socking. Had you filed this report just after it happened, you would have likely gotten the results you were looking for.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't be so sure that there is no edit war right now. Edit wars can be either fast or slow - sometimes users will revert each other only once per week or per month, for example. If it drags on for long enough, it's still an edit war, even though there is no day-to-day reverting. You're right of course that I should have moved more quickly. Thank you for at least protecting the article. ImprovingWiki (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• A collection of Warsaw-based IPs seem to be editing along with User:Piotrniz to force certain material to stay in the article. (5.172.252.104 (talk · contribs), 46.77.124.134 (talk · contribs) and 89.67.140.182 (talk · contribs)). Presumably there is one person using all these identities. The behavior is sufficiently blatant to justify sock enforcement. If User:Berean Hunter is leaving this open for closure by other admins, I suggest a one-month block for User:Piotrniz for abusing multiple accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Interesting. A block for actually what? For adding unwanted content (who knows why unwanted, perhaps money) or for using multiple accounts? I do not use multiple accounts. Some IPs you pointed were likely mine but perhaps not all in the article history. Besides, it is the ISP who keeps switching IPs of users (so called dynamic IP assignment). Perhaps you really mean another guilt(?). Piotrniz (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked account 1 month for socking. Hardblocked all three /24 ranges for several months after looking at other IP contribs in the same range and determined that they are him...no collateral damage. He won't be using other accounts through them. He edited Lucilio Vanini today for example.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Page: Men, Women & Children (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.80.9.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [187]
2. [188]
3. [189]
4. [190]
5. [191]
6. [192]

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

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

Comments:
Anonymous user not only doesn't accept my edit, but also says that my edits are "irresponsible" yet the user had only two edits at the time, both being the revisions. User does not have a talk page, unlike most IP addresses, so I tried to resolve it in the brief summary of my recent revision. User then rejected my request to stop this war and reverted my edit again, and continues to do so. - Theironminer (talk) 23:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Article protected five days. Please use the talk page to get agreement on the disputed items. EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Page

Robots (2005 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2602:304:AF53:3E99:4CA2:28D8:2EF3:450D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 18:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 18:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 628514616 by St170e (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [194]
2. [195]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. [196]

Comments:

User was warned after multiple reverts. Also seems to be IP hopping and reverting from here and here in addition to reported account.

User was warned on one of the accounts several times including a final. DrNegative (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a string of ten unexplained reverts of the article to a version which is almost four years old (457 edits ago) [197]. Prior to the three reverts by 2602:304:af53:3e99:4ca2:28d8:2ef3:450d the edits were made by

1. Special:Contributions/2602:304:af53:3e99:f852:975e:afee:6f16 [198],
2. Special:Contributions/2602:304:af53:3e99:b86c:d7bb:fe99:d9dc [199] and [200],
3. Special:Contributions/74.245.51.233 [201],
4. Special:Contributions/2602:304:af53:3e99:8197:d937:1c2a:f22c [202], and
5. Special:Contributions/2602:304:af53:3e99:5d4f:e8e9:8b71:9c5e [203] and [204].

After the article was put up for protection I was given a bogus 15 year block notice by one of the IPs [205]. Meters (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Result: Semiprotected three days by User:HJ Mitchell. EdJohnston (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [206]
2. [207]
3. [208]
4. [209]
5. [210]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: He already knows the rules, having been blocked two times

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Every time the page was restored the reported user got an explanation in the edit field, not just by me. He never engaged those arguments, he just keeps reverting.

Comments:

• Blocked – Two weeks due to previous block record. This editor does not seem to use talk pages. As recently as September 1 he was engaged in an edit war at Juncker Commission. EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:
Plotograts seems to believe that some content encourages "Gold bugs". Jim1138 (talk) 03:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Plotograts is almost certainly one of two socks of Adnarkey‎, the other being Iotablue, that are being used for aggressive POV editing on the article Gold bug. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Adnarkey. This involves blatant violations of BLP and is ongoing despite repeated warnings and reversions. Ping Dougweller. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Already blocked Dougweller (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)