Page: Council of the European Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aight 2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Council_of_the_European_Union&oldid=628831988

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Council_of_the_European_Union&diff=628835211&oldid=628831988
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Council_of_the_European_Union&diff=628851008&oldid=628844430
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Council_of_the_European_Union&diff=628955710&oldid=628852090
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Council_of_the_European_Union&diff=629021340&oldid=628988280

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aight_2009&diff=628856863&oldid=628853670

Attempt to resolve dispute on the User's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aight_2009#Names_of_the_Danish_political_party_.22Radikale_Venstre.22

Aight 2009 (talk) 10:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC) I paste ther my arguments on the user page Blue-Haired Lawyer. He didn't respond on it: if you see close to talk which somebody started you would read that no one answer on my statement. please read it firstly. next thing is if people think that radikale means social-liberal it's shame and being against the dictionary. Why we then include radical left name on the article of party? I repeat it but going this way Portuguese social democratic party should change name but only in English translation because isn't social democratic but centre-right. Oh but why didn't do it? because they use dictionary. Aight 2009 (talk) 06:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can add that until this year people used "original" name of party GERB in Bulgaria which was said to abbreviation but it doesn't. Party was registered as GERB only. People used to think that cannot be full name so they created false acronym GERB= Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria. We should keep only original name. I add also that this cannot take place with irish parties because they are registered only in irish, so irish English use it without translation. Aight 2009 (talk) 06:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

In addition I don't want to change article name of radikale venstre (name of GERB I changed) I just defend using original name on the article Council of the European Union. Aight 2009 (talk) 09:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

3RR slightly outside the 24h period (perhaps due to night), however Aight 2009 has been pointed out by three different editors (Tsuroerusu, Blue-Haired Lawyer, and myself) that the naming issue should be discussed at Talk:Danish Social Liberal Party, where it actually seems resolved; in spite of these three opinions, Aight 2009 keeps reverting correct edits. I will be grateful for an authoritative opinion on this edit war. Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 23:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Stale. The reverts you're listing are from October 8-9. The last revert was on October 12.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's only because the edit warrior's preferred version was left in place. There's already been one further revert today, and I suspect another one shortly. Btw Aight 2009's edit summary was "Result of your edit warring: stale". — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 16:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Two further reverts by Aight 2009 on 20 October:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Council_of_the_European_Union&diff=630359599&oldid=630299153

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Council_of_the_European_Union&diff=630405826&oldid=630388609

kashmiri ^TALK 20:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Another revert by Aight 2009 on 22 October:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Council_of_the_European_Union&diff=630706844&oldid=630698594.

This user insists on violating WP:NCPP and disregards all advice offered to him/her by more experienced editors. Appalling. kashmiri ^TALK 10:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Origin of the Romanians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Eurocentral (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1] (first sentence of the lead)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]
5. [6]
6. [7] (his first return to his version after an RfC was initiated and a consensus was reached)
7. [8] (deletion of an inline template message)
8. [9]
9. [10]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11] (Eurocentral is warned in the edit summary)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [12] (RfC - which ended with a consensual lead: [13])
2. [14] (he opened a separate debate on the same issue during the RfC, with my warning to stop edit warring)

Comments:
Just for information, he has just initiated a SPI against me (without informing me). Dear administrators, please inform me if Eurocentral's behaviour is acceptable in our community. In this case, I also have to change my attitude to adopt this new standard.

• Result: No action, but User:Eurocentral is notified of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE. All parties should notice the RfC at Talk:Origin of the Romanians#RfC: What would be a neutral first sentence? I suggest that people make specific proposals for the wording of the lead, because the RfC has now been going for almost a month. After 30 days it will expire off the RfC lists and it may be harder to get an agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Pedophilia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cjmooney9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [16]
2. [17]
3. [18]
4. [19]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21]

Comments:
Cjmooney9 has a history of engaging in WP:Synthesis and WP:Edit warring at the Pedophilia article, and elsewhere on Wikipedia, and never seems to truly adhere to the WP:Edit warring policy or the idea of building WP:Consensus on the talk page first. Flyer22 (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Just noting that Cjmooney9 has now reverted again, after they were notified of this 3RR report. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours De728631 (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am following Wikimedia edit warring/dispute/resolution as part of my own study, and have read this article history. Editors shouldn't be using their knowledge of the Wikimedia bureaucracy to control pages. It's the very reason we might not even have a site in 5 years - willing contributors being scared off. It annoys me so I comment. From what I can tell from the talk page, the user was pointing out what he saw as factual errors, and looking to make improvements. These edits seemed small, and valid. But they were simply being deleted immediately by "Flyer22" with no explanation. Any attempts to explain the changes on the talk page, were quickly dismissed. He has then obviously used his knowledge of the bureaucracy to report the user once he had made the prerequisite number of edit attempts. I should also add both users made 4 reverts to the article. It was not multiple users deleting the changes, in a consensus. It was a single person making continued reverts. "Flyer22" could have been reported to you himself for breaking the 3RR.

These aggressive Editors know there will never be enough contributors to overrule the version they want. They handle individual editors, by reverting their edits, dismissing their suggestions on the talk page, and then using the bureaucracy to control them if they continue arguing. Until eventually the contributor leaves the site.

Edits done in good faith, by people looking to improve the article, should not be continually reverted by a single user, acting on behalf of "the article". Or the version of the article they personally want to see. It's against the spirit of the site, and it's rules. It's made even worse when the Editor then uses their knowledge of the site bureaucracy to report new contributors, to intimidate them from making contribution. The person editing the articles is often operating with good faith, in the spirit of the site. The person reverting, as they don't want "their" article changed in any way, often isn't.

This system of white male Editors, patrolling pages, and gaming the system to keep things how they want, will be the death of Wikipedia. In 5 years they won't have a page to patrol, as the site would have lost too many contributors to operate.

Ninanaly (talk)

A couple of replies:

• The reverts were explained, in the edit summaries and on the article's talk page, by Flyer22 and others.
• Neither Flyer22 nor any of the others who reverted Cjmooney9 violated the 3RR.
• I can assure you that not all of the involved users are white men, because I'm not a white man.
• This wasn't about others knowing more than Cjmooney9 about WP bureaucracy, because the 3RR was explained to Cjmooney9 on their talk page, in edit summaries, and on Flyer22's talk page. Not only did Cjmooney9 continue to revert after the 3RR was explained, but they continued to revert after being informed that they'd been reported here.

Thank you for your interest; I trust this clears up your concerns, but please feel free to ask me on my talk page or the article's talk page if you have any questions (the 3RR board isn't the best place to continue this, probably). Cheers! Dawn Bard (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dawn Bard. Your WP:Assume good faith approach regarding Ninanaly (talk · contribs) is amazing. Me, on the other hand, however? I will state right now that Ninanaly is a WP:Sockpuppet who "just happened" to pop up in this report for their "first edit." Better to ignore the WP:Sockpuppet until it is time to report the WP:Sockpuppet, especially since the WP:Sockpuppet has reported this matter inaccurately above. To state that there was one editor (meaning me) reverting Cjmooney9 is obviously false, for example. And, no, Ninanaly, I am not a male, as is well known among many very experienced Wikipedians. Flyer22 (talk) 03:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Galerie Gmurzynska (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC) "Restores suppressed history."

1. 16:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC) "Restores properly documented and sourced history of the gallery."

1. 21:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC) "Responds to administrators' remarks on edit warring."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion */ don't resume the edit war."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 23:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Stubifying */ new section"

Comments:

Resumption of edit war right after unprotection of page, following previous report of edit war. User has not engaged in talk page discussion since, but has merely posted to my talk page to explain why his edit warring isn't edit warring. (PS: If anyone wants to take over being the eyes on this article, please do. I'm tired of the game of both sides of this.) Nat Gertler (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: Two editors blocked 3 days: User:Grammophone and User:Art&Design3000. Bbb23 warned both participants in this closure of the previous 3RR earlier this month. Ten days of full protection was not enough to cool down these guys. It appears that Art&Design3000 has also been reverting using an IP. There might be considered to be BLP issues, but the negative material is well-sourced. Mostly the article needs some normal editing to restore perspective and omit the blow-by-blow of legal disputes. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: List of wars involving Mexico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
AbelM7: AbelM7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [22]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [23]
2. [24]
3. [25]
4. [26]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28], [29], [30]

Comments:
I am having problems with the user AbelM7 once again, we have had problems regarding this kind articles back some months ago, yet here we are again, last time it took weeks and various users to make him understand. He keeps removing data that is appropiate for the arcticle, especially when, as i explained to him in his talk page and edit summaries many times now that the incidents i want to add are nowhere near to be as simple as he describes them in his summaries and that there are another entries in the page that are less relevant and less fitting to be there, but he has no problem with them, AbelM7 is a user that is constantly engaged in edit wars and on his talk page there are always other users asking him to stop editing in the arbitrary and biased manner he edits (he always removes/adds data because he wants it, not because is appropiate or not, writting the same false argments again and again in the edit summaries, disregarding all the explanations that other users give to him), He has been blocked for ewdit warring and violating the 3RR 3 times before this year, with the most recent being two weeks ago [31] He does know wha he is doing, and has been warned enough times before for acting the way he acts

That's all i think. HMWD (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: AbelM7 and HMWD are blocked four days each. They both have a history of edit warring. Instead of reverting forever you could try for a talk page consensus or use WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: List of wars involving Mexico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HMWD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [33]
2. [34]
3. [35]
4. [36]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38], [39], [40], [41]

Comments:
Once again, HMWD has decided to start another edit war with me in the same article. We had a dispute a while back and it took weeks and interference by other users to make him understand and then we reached a compromise. Now he's back, this time trying to add an expedition and a massacre to the list of wars involving Mexico. He keeps on adding the expedition and the massacre. I keep on explaining to him (many times) why they shouldn't be there (obvious one: they're not wars) but he ignores the reasons, comes up with "both incidents involved hundreds of men and lasted from weeks to months" as a reason (they could last however long, that still wouldn't make them wars) and keeps on adding them there. This would be the equivalent of adding the Lewis and Clark Expedition and the Boston Massacre to the list of wars involving the United States. I don't want to edit war with him. He seems to have created his profile just for editing on the Border War and List of wars involving Mexico with his own biased editing and doesn't show any signs of stopping. He just won't listen. AbelM7 (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, HMWD has decided to start another edit war with me in the same article AbelM7, i think you must read WP:EDITWAR first, you are the reverter here, by definition you started the edit war, and keep ignoring all the reasons i've given to you and keep reverting, and every time you are reported instantly after you open a case to report the user that reported you, wikipedia is not a game or a toy. I am now wondering if you really believe that what you are doing is fair and unbiased in any way (because i've told you many times before: many incidents already included in that article are worse in every way than the ones i want to include, call it relevancy, duration, number of men involved, officiality whatever. But you don't have any problem with these), or you just like to play with the patience of other editors. Whenever you edit it takes big presure from other editors, treaths of blocking or you getting blocked to make you desist from doing your plays in other articles, you have been blocked three times for doing this before [42]. Is not that everyone else is at fault and you are right, you are the one that is at fault. HMWD (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: Both editors blocked per an earlier report of the same dispute. See above. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page

WWE Libraries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 19:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 21:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style) on WWE Libraries. (TW)"
2. 04:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style) on WWE Libraries. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Has repeatedly ignored warnings against disregarding Manual of Style and has even removed a final warning against him from his talk page. Creativity-II (talk) 04:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of one week. I didn't block the IP for edit warring but for suspected sock puppetry (see User:GomezChristo) and obvious disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Third rail of politics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: KeyboardWarriorOfZion (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. [43]
2. [44]
3. [45]
4. [46]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[47] and [48]

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

Comments:KeyboardWarriorOfZion having edited both the article and talk page in question since July is well aware that adding to article the claim that (roughly speaking) American relations with the State of Israel is a "third rail" does not have consensus for inclusion. I was hoping my second warning today would get him to discuss the sourcing problems mentioned on the talk page. I suppose he is calling my hand, so I don't know what else to do but file this report.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 05:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem how I can't contribute BOTH in the talk page and the actual entry. I also don't know why my comments have gone unanswered in this topic when I dare challenged this Two kinds of pork fellow, and all he did was threaten me with a block when I justified my edits. CHECK YOUR CITATIONS! (talk) 06:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At issue is the fact that you are not discussing, but dictacting. Yoy participated in the discussion over the summer, and indeed the discussion is still on the page. So far it is fairly obvious that there is no consensus for your preferred version. You can try dispute resolution if you wish, but you should return the article in the status quo antebellum in the interim. Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 06:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore your questioning if I'm an Israeli or an American Jew is tantamount an ad hominem argument, and could be considered a personal attack. Howecer as I've stated before, your username indicates you may have a WP:COI with respect to Israel, as many have used Zionism as a pejorative with matters related to Israel.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 06:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 24 hours for long-term edit warring. The user has been reverting on this point since May 2014. There is no hint that he is ever going to accept consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Prime Minister of Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 11:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 630621850 by HiLo48 (talk)"
3. 07:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 07:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 630621537 by Dmol (talk) sure can discuss on talk page"
5. 06:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 630593755 by MelbourneStar (talk) explain your reasons, TIMELINE is to varied"
6. 10:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC) "i like the headings , because it is more comprehensive i feel"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Prime Minister of Australia. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP continues to edit war, despite being asked to discuss changes numerous times. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just semi'ed it for three weeks. They can make an account and edit the article again in a few days if that dedicated. Not fond of blocking ip addresses...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Page: Scientific opinion on climate change (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), which I think is under 1RR
  
• User being reported: Serten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  

User notified of this filing here
Past History

• This user has a really impressive block log at the German wiki; other editors commented about this at Serten's user page. Serten deleted that discussion/warning (as is his right) on Aug 30 2014
  
• This user received an edit war warning from this board on a different article earlier this month
  

DIFFS (verified that these are not in series)

• 02:29, October 22, 2014‎ Serten Added {{too few opinions}} tag to article
• 03:06, October 22, 2014‎ Serten Its rather important to include what the IPCC and the IAC see as important limitations of its own activities, the consensus includes known unknowns as well, Version without {{too few opinions}}
• 07:29, October 22, 2014‎ Serten Try to increase competence by reading valid and important sources. See talk page.
• 07:36, October 22, 2014‎ Serten Calling Oppenheimers essay an individual viewopoint is sort of stark
• 09:09, October 22, 2014‎ Serten If the article doesnt deal with the IPCC, move redundant content where it belongs.
• 09:19, October 22, 2014‎ Serten see talk page

USER TALK PAGE RESPONSE

• 10:19, October 22, 2014 At his user talk, Serten explicitly refuses to self-revert and rejects another ed's assertion that Serten has broken 3RR.
  

COMMENT I realize this isn't AE, but just to emphasize the behavior here, this article is under DS(climate). Serten was warned about DS on climate in June, and I reminded him of that in an ill-conceived ANI he filed just a few days ago.
ACTION SOUGHT Whatever you think will prevent future edit/template warring. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: Blocked 24 hours. I see four reverts starting at 7:29. Serten's talk comment where he says his edits were about 'different content in two different cases' is not significant when counting up towards four reverts. Per WP:EW *all* reverts are counted. EdJohnston (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If reverts were accumulative in one article, there would be various people blocked forever. Actually two cases, ongoing discussion on talk page and proper adjustment of the tags in question. Factually the climate team tries to impose an informal topic bockade, they revert even content based on IPCC internal sources. WP coud do better on the topic. Serten (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: dif

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10 October 2014 diff adding criticism of critics
2. 13 October 2014 diff adding back that criticism of critics after it had been reverted
3. 16 October 2014 diff adding back that criticism of critics after it had been reverted
4. 18 October 2014 diff adding back that criticism of critics after it had been reverted
5. 18:02 20 October 2014 diff ramping up now and removing criticism of Greger's ideas altogether
6. 19:11 21 October 2014 diff again deleting criticism of Greger's ideas after it had been restored
7. 18:29, 22 October 2014 diff again deleting criticism of Greger's ideas after it had been restored

Efforts to get Hboetes to discuss

• 17 October 2014 Hboete's Talk page thread opened by Brianyoumans to try to draw Hboetes into discussion
• dismissive reponse by Hboetes
• 18 October 2014 another attempt by Brianyoumans on Hboetes' talk page urging Hboetes to discuss on article Talk page
• 20:26, 21 October 2014 3RR warning from Jytdog
• 20:26, 21 October 2014 warned user not to edit war and follow BRD in this edit note
• 20:27, 21 October 2014 Jytdog created Welcome message as no one had done that
• 20:33, 21 October 2014 Jytdog writes long note about how Wikipedia works on Hboetes' page, trying to teach Hboetes and pull into discussion
• 18:28, 22 October 2014 Hboetes blanks his Talk page (after which Hboetes went and made another revert)
• 18:33, 22 October 2014 Jytdog offers one more chance to avoid this
• 18:34, 22 October 2014 Hboetes promptly deletes]

Comments:
This is a slow edit war. Hboetes is a WP:SPA. All his edits to date have been adding information positive about the subject, adding criticism to his critics, or removing criticism. We've made extensive efforts to engage Hboetes who has never posted on article Talk page and today blanked his talk page and reverted again. Hboetes is WP:NOTHERE. Please block. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC) (striking to correct Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Of course jytdog mentions a very one sided story. I did try to talk reason with those guys on various times.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMichael_Greger&diff=630398545&oldid=630381250

And my initial edit was undone without decent reasoning nor listening. I don't mind criticism to Dr. Greger, but this reference is slander from someone who firmly believes eating meat is healthy and is clearly biased on the matter. User jytdog is abusing the system he knows quite well by now. This doesn't mean he isn't biased.

Please look at the whole log, also on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hboetes (talk • contribs) 19:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

that is a good call, I missed that. I apologize and have struck my remark above. Hboetes has made three comments on the Talk page:

• 10:17, 18 October 2014 dif with rhetorical questions not dealing with policy or guidelines.
• 17:14, 20 October 2014 diff again comments based on personal preference (calling a 2013 critique outdated...)
• 17:22, 20 October 2014 diff just adding a bit to his earlier statement with further unsourced opinon.

again my apology for getting that wrong. Hboetes should still be blocked for edit warring and not making effort to discuss in good faith, based on policy and guideline. per his comments above. We need him to learn that good faith discussion based on policies and guidelines is how Wikipedia functions - not edit warring and strong opinions. (i have not gone into what was in his edit notes!) Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Uno (bus company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC) "This company has made the news more than a couple of times. Added accident section with news backed refernces"
2. 20:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC) "Added to history section."
3. 21:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC) "we don't have to censor all of them either. perhaps only the recent ones will be a fair compromise."
4. 21:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 630707069 by Charlesdrakew (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

New page hence no diff.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit warring after template warning on user's talkpage Charles (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: Article semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: 21 Oct

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22 Oct, 13:08
2. 22 Oct, 13:28
3. 22 Oct, 16:31
4. 22 Oct, 17:05

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Bbaskbas (3RR warning and discretionary sanctions notice, after the first two reverts)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Istanbul#Fringe claims about etymology (initiated discussion after the first of my own reverts today)

Comments:

New user insists on inserting isolated claim sourced to fringe author in a nationalist/populist tabloid newspaper; refuses to take note of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE in discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: PrimPol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BQUB14-Ebuades (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: dif

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:37, 22 October diff
2. 21:12, 22 October diff
3. 21:34, 22 October diff
4. 21:41, 22 October diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• warned
• warned by Donner60
• 3RR warning by me
• 2nd warning by Donner60

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

Comments:

BQUB14-Ebuades appears to be a medical student in Spain (others from the group have talked to me here. They do not appear in touch with with Wikiproject Education at all. Almost all of them are behaving badly but this editor is wildly bad. 4 attempts to completely over-write decent content with badly written and badly sourced content, with no discussion. (another editor and I worked it over this morning and got it into decent shape).

BQUB14-Ebuades has not talked back on his/her talk page, not talked on the article page, not left an edit note. Nada. This is where education projects really slide over into pure COI where the student's work is more important to them the Encyclopedia and WP:NOTHERE just comes streaming through. 72 hour block, please. Jytdog (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: Article fully protected two weeks. Multiple BQUB14-* students have edited this article and I notice that all of their changes have been rolled back. Ask for unprotection once this can be sorted out. EdJohnston (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Render to Caesar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Last rabbi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid addition of 'received mixed critical reviews'; repetitive, as is already reflected under 'Reception'."
2. 20:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision by Jamie Tubers (talk) Standard film pages on Wikipedia do not include critical reception as part of summary in article lead. Check."
3. 21:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision by Jamie Tubers"
4. 22:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision by Jamie Tubers (talk) Check your talk page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user keeps reverting an appropriate contribution unnecessarily. I warned him; but instead of him to ask questions/discuss, he went ahead to revert once more; stating that some articles do not have summary of their reception in the lead as well. He also implied that I am attacking the subject in his reply on my talkpage here. I believe this user has a "conflict of Interest" for the subject of the article, as he/she hasn't made significant contributions to other articles outside this subject. This user has also violated the "3RR" rule. Jamie Tubers (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – User:Last rabbi is blocked 24 hours for 3RR violation and concern about promotional editing. User:Jamie Tubers is warned that in a two-person edit war both parties are risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Talk:Physical Address Extension (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jeh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For this users always use airy words to describe what I post on Wikipedia.org, such as "little", "wrong"... and denote "done" on the section what I post without my decision on it, and guided me what I should do. This behavior could potentially be counted as personal attack and violate the Freedom of Wikipedia.org.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [50]

Comments:

There were no "reverts" at all (unless one counts Janagewen's deletion of my "Done" tag), let alone three.

• Janagewen added a paragraph of supposed "explanation" to a months-old thread.
• As that "explanation" was in fact "not even wrong," I replied, with corrections. I then decided the talk page was long overdue for archiving, so I added an archive bot template.
• Janagewen thanked me for my reply.
• I [pointed out that I'd given the same explanation months ago during the thread's previous life.
• Since the thread in question would have been archived months ago had archiving been set up, I switched to an archive bot that supports requested archiving and added a {{Done}} tag to the thread, in an attempt to avoid further similar "contributions". The latter was an overreach, and I apologize.
• Janagewen objected to this and removed the Done tag.
• There was one more exchange. (I'm leaving the talk page alone until this EW report is settled.)
• About 20 minutes later, Janagewen created this report.
• Janagewen has now wasted roughly fifteen minutes of my time (the time it took to create this reply and find all the links to the diffs), all because he doesn't know what a "revert" or an "edit war" is. (Is there something like AN/WP:CIR?)

It is clear that Janagewen feels wronged that I should correct his erroneous statements, or that I should request archiving of "his" thread, but that has nothing to do with edit-warring. I think he really wanted some other forum. Jeh (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am so glad that Jeh made some replies here. But there is another serious sentence from him, "I think he really wanted some other forum."

I thought Jeh were a respectful professor about 5 years ago, when my first stupid revision about PAE were reverted by him. That was the very reason I started that topic, and stated my ideas about it. Yeah, this is not a edit war, and nothing serious about edit war, removing or even reverting. The most serious thing is that people would love to join and express his/her reasonable ideas about it, because that is a talk page. Jeh is great, and I do like to read what he wrote, and learned a lot from him. I know I might post so many improper topics on Wikipedia.org, but I have done, and that might be the very reason to "some other fourm.". But I have to say Wikipedia.org is the greatest, and too many great people that delight my lonely way, including respectful Jeh. But I've already left a report here, ok, just let it stay without reasoning whether proper or not... Janagewen (talk) 10:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By "some other forum" I meant perhaps WP:AN/I, rather than here at EW. That was not a suggestion that you find someplace other than WP, not at all. Jeh (talk) 10:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: Nothing to do here. This doesn't seem to be a report of edit warring. I hope that the above exchange of views has led to better understanding. EdJohnston (talk) 13:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Twenty:20 (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Bangbang43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 630650095 by Wiki-senetor (talk)heyy Mr. mind your words"
2. 13:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 630648167 by Wiki-senetor (talk)vandal"
3. 12:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 630625079 by Wiki-senetor (talk)proper vandalism"
4. 04:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 630554942 by Wiki-senetor (talk)removing the official poster and promotional."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

His account is in favour for a particular actor, high vandalism and bad language. Promoting a particular actor and degrading an other. Wiki-senator 16:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – Wiki-senetor is blocked 24 hours. Bangbang43 has been blocked 48 hours by User:Ronhjones. In the future, please consider WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Project Riese (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Les7007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [51]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [52] (abusive summary: vandalism)
2. [53] (same abusive summary)
3. [54] (same)
4. [55] (same)

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

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

Comments:

Single purpose account Les7007 (talk · contribs) (total of 287 edits) Google-translated Project Riese from the Polish Wikipedia in 2009 and ever since, takes total ownership of it, unable to communicate with other Wikipedians, i.e. deleting invitations to collaborative work from his talkpage, reverting improvements to article with false summaries,[59], deleting cleanup templates repeatedly, and abusing me verbally on the article talk page; for example, after his wp:personal attack was removed, User:Les7007 now edit-wars to restore the same WP:PA back:

1. [60] (same abusive summary: "vandalism")
2. [61] (same)
3. [62] (same)
4. [63] (same)
5. [64] (same)

Poeticbent talk 18:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I have no problem to communicate with anybody except User:Poeticbent. After reverting some of his chaotic edits [65] he attacked me on the article talk page [66] using abusive summary: "talking to the hand" and words: "this is a lie" and again [67] with words: "stop lying", "talking to a blank wall", "stop making up things" and "quite a departure from your lies"[68]. Then he started campaign of editing my posts:

1. [69]
2. [70]
3. [71]
4. [72]
5. [73]

and attacking Project Riese with "Fanpov" with summary: "tagged as fan page requiring oversight" without any evidence or source:

1. [74]
2. [75]
3. [76]
4. [77]

Please notice his condescending tone in calling me everywhere "single purpose account" because I have only 287 edits.

Les7007 (talk) 02:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Your total ownership of the article you translated from the Polish Wikipedia does not make you immune to WP:3RR policy, including the use of abusive edit summaries or absurdly repetitious reinsertions of your WP:personal attacks. Wikipedia does not give you the right to behave like a jerk without some kind of repercussions. Read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines at least once before contributing anything in the future.
  Note to the administrator: — Appartently User:Les7007 cannot stop himself from lying even on this page while attempting to (quote-unquote) defend himself. He calls reverts of his wp:personal attacks on article talk page (get this): "campaign of editing my posts". Poeticbent talk 02:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Marty Markowitz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:1006:B11D:C6B1:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [78]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [79]
2. [80]
3. [81]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [82]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [83]

Comments:

I was going to wait for 4th revert but this person's IP is anonymous so I feel like there might be some bad faith editing there. --Aichik (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a problem with repeated POV blanking from this anon IP here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Hart&diff=630818352&oldid=630784890 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Hart&diff=630607183&oldid=630599580 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Hart&diff=630571240&oldid=630540282 I am requesting an investigation for Wiki:sockCarpo- Rusyn (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not experienced in how things work at this noticeboard, but I would like to mention that Aichik has not provided a link to where he warned this IP, nor to where he tried to resolve this dispute. The link provided for "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning" is the same as the one provided for "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page". And what does that link lead to? A section on the IP's talk page, consisting only of "Here is what I mean about OVERCITE," plus a signature. That is obviously not a warning for edit warring, and I don't think it can be counted as an attempt at dispute resolution either. I would suggest that Aichik provide what this noticeboard asks for.
In addition, the person reported here has made many edits since registering just a few days ago, and all look constructive from the quick glance I gave them. While they can edit war as well as anyone else, they don't look like a bad-faith vandal.
I'm not making any claims besides what I've explicitly stated, and I apologize if I shouldn't be sticking my nose here. But I just want to make sure an administrator takes this stuff into consideration. NealCruco (talk) 00:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't concur. This is an anonymous IP. It is unknown if there is also registered account. What my quick review of the edit history of the IP noticed, was a large number of reverts without corresponding discussion or the addition of constructive content. It is very easy to find fault with the work of others, but I believe that editing should strive to be more affirmative than simply negative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpo- Rusyn (talk • contribs) 04:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No violation. The three reverts listed (which are links instead of the requested diffs) are days apart. Considering the changes going back and forth, this is barely an edit war, and one of the stupider ones I've seen - and I've seen some pretty stupid battles - in a while. Why doesn't everyone do something more constructive than arguing over ncluding or not including a cite? And, Carpo- Rusyn, the accusations of socking are unsupported by anything, so put a lid on it. It doesn't help that you yourself are a very newly registered account and come out of nowhere charging socking.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: International Turkish Hope School, Dhaka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cevdet24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [84]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [85]
2. [86]
3. [87]
4. [88]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [89]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [90]

Comments:

Repeated insertion of promotional material copied from school website after 3 warnings.

Please refer to page history. I & ClueBot have 3x reverted promotional & copyvio insertions. The article needed attention but Cevdet24 was warned twice that they were going about this the wrong way (initial warning, second warning). They made no effort to respond in any way and are at their 4th turn of adding the same material, with slight variations: Noyster (talk), 21:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Europlug (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Turkeyphant (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]
5. [96]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [98] Comments:

User Turkeyphant persists in inserting a claim that the Europlug is physically compatible with the BS 1363 socket, despite the BS 1363 standard requiring that it not be possible to insert a Europlug into a BS 1363 socket. It is possible on some, but not all, BS 1363 sockets to tamper with the safety mechanism to open the shutters, and then force a Europlug into the BS 1363 socket (this is clearly stated in the article), Turkeyphant has not disputed that this can only be done by tampering, and then forcing (The pins of the Europlug have to be forced apart to enter the socket), but claims despite this they are still physically compatible. He also refuses to acknowledge that socket contacts designed to mate with flat pins are not compatible with round pins (there is a danger of arcing caused by poor contact). Further, he insists on distorting a published warning from the UK Electrical Safety Council warning of the widespread occurrence of fires due to the practice which he wishes to promote. FF-UK (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [99]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [100]
2. [101]
3. [102]
4. [103]
5. [104]
6. [105]
7. [106]
8. [107]
9. [108]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [109]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [110]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Acroterion (talk) 02:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: 2014 Russian Grand Prix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Haken arizona (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_Russian_Grand_Prix&diff=630898469&oldid=630898047

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [111]
2. [112]
3. [113]
4. [114]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [115]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [116]

Comments:
Haken arizona has repeatedly edited the "attendance" figures into this article, despite the use of questionable sources. His first, from ABC.net.au referred to attendance figures from the Saturday of the event, but was being used to support attendance figures from the Sunday of the event. His second source referred to a "near capacity crowd", but gives no indication to how near to capacity "near capacity" is. The issues with these sources have been repeatedly pointed out on the talk page, but he has made no effort to address the issues with his sources, instead declaring that they are acceptable despite one of his key arguments being that the journalist is unable to count everyone in attendance, thus demonstrating that it fails WP:VERIFIABLE. He has since taken to sitting on the page, reverting edits on sight and refusing to address the questions that gave been asked of him. Given that he was made aware of the issues several times and willingly ignored them, I considered the edits to be vandalism. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This guy is totally out of line. Journalist will not go and count every seat to give specific down to one digit number. It is reported that the event was sold out to capacity, which means 55,000. Prisonermonkeys is out of line — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haken arizona (talk • contribs) 07:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the journalist cannot count every person in attendance—which makes the source unverifiable—why haven't you provided any evidence of the venue's capacity? You only have the journalist's word that the venue hosts 55,000, but as you just said, the journalist could not have counted all of them. And as far as I am aware, the venue only has 55,000 fixed seats, but there is a general access area that can host up to 10,000 people. So if that is accurate, then claiming the venue is at capacity with 55,000 spectators is off by nearly 20% of its total.

Again, this comes down to the fact that you have not reconciled the issues with your sources. I am not opposed to the inclusion of the attendance figures; I simply ask that you demonstrate reliability, verifiability and specificity in any source you post. You have ignored this, despite being made well aware of the issues on multiple occasions, and gave instead taken to trying to force the edits through by brute force—all of which could have been avoided if you had addressed the issues that were raised. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected You're both lucky not to be blocked, both of you violated WP:3RR. If this continues after protection expires, I will block you both. Dreadstar ☥ 08:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreadstar: may I ask for clarification here? I reverted Haken arizona's edits because I felt they were vandalism. I pointed out the issues with his sources on the talk page before the edit warring began, and did so several more times once it started. Given his knowledge of the issues while editing that content in, and his refusal to address it, doesn't that qualify as vandalism? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edits like this do not meet the criteria outlined in Wikipedia:Vandalism; and if you thought it was vandalism, then instead of uselessly edit warring, you should have reported it to the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism noticeboard. But I can tell from the source and by the language used by your fellow-edit-warrior, that the intent was not to harm WP. Haken Arizona's edits were not vandalism, and neither were yours - it was a simple content and WP:RS dispute that got out of hand. You two should have taken it to WP:RS/N or get a WP:3O, not bang heads, disrupting the article with edit warring. Dreadstar ☥ 10:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. A disagreement over the capacity of the venue is not vandalism, which is a quite different phenomenon, often involving the word "poop." Labeling a disagreement as vandalism will not help you to win an argument, and diminishes your credibility. Acroterion (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yeah, what Acroterion said. Simpler than mine... :) Dreadstar ☥ 10:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Francis Schonken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Diff showing the last pre-edit war policy version: 6 July 2014

Note regarding the diff above: The first diff shown above was Francis' first attempt to alter Wikipedia policy without any prior consensus discussion on the policy's talk page. Fortunately User:Flyer22 typically "guards" that page against such changes without any consensus discussion, as she did on that day (July 9) within 5 minutes of Francis' first attempt to foist his preferred NPOV policy onto Wikipedia without any consensus with anyone else.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Diff of July 30th, showing user waited 21 days, then quietly, again reverted/ inserted his personally preferred NPOV policy without any prior consensus discussion on the policy talk page.
2. Diff of Oct. 23rd, showing reversion made after a very lengthy discussion on the policy talk page (initiated by Scott) specifically about the user's July 30 reversion.
3. Diff of Oct. 24th, showing user's last policy reversion.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Revised Diff showing edit war warning (first link was incorrect)Scott P. (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Lengthy discussion specifically about this user's July 30 revert, by the bottom of the discussion, it appears that this user no longer has any support at all for his reverts, yet he continues to revert

Comments:

Francis is a seasoned 9 year veteran of Wikipedia, with lots of knowledge of the intricacies of administrative actions. He has a lengthy history of edit-war related blocks. We have been trying to discuss his desired policy change with him now for three days, and ultimately, his last ditch effort to try to save his desired policy change is merely to enter into another edit-war and somehow hope nobody notices? What is he thinking?? He has now wasted my time, and that of many others, with an apparent absolute disregard for consensus. I have not the slightest desire to be up at 4 AM local time having to write this, then go into work when I'm done. I would like to request a one month ban for Francis, banning him from any WP policy pages, so perhaps he might begin to remember exactly what consensus is the next time it occurs to him to behave so disruptively. (This is my first reporting of a 3RR violation. I hope I did it right. Any suggestions as to how I might have done better would be most appreciated. Thanks.) Scott P. (talk) 08:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I wouldn't call Francis Schonken's block log lengthy; I've seen far longer block logs than that. But I understand that your point is that he's been blocked a few times for WP:Edit warring. Flyer22 (talk) 08:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is my first time doing this, and any blocks at all are a surprise to me. Scott P. (talk) 09:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• See (also):
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AScottperry&diff=630781311&oldid=630582011#Edit_warring
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AScottperry&diff=630782981&oldid=630781311#WP:ANI
  • Wikipedia:ANI#Disruptive_editing_by_Scottperry_at_WP:NPOV

--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note, no admin actions on any of those. All were resolved privately and on good terms between myself and the other party. Scott P. (talk) 09:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Further, I think I also provided an amicable solution to Scottperry's actual problem (which is not with the WP:BALASPS section he keeps reverting to a version before a new consensus was established in July 2014):
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Course_in_Miracles&diff=630900903&oldid=627488408#Content_of_A_Course_in_Miracles
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AA_Course_in_Miracles&diff=630902051&oldid=630197811#Synopsis_requested
• ...and tried to clear misunderstandings resulting from the {{primary}} template:
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk%3APrimary_sources&diff=630909608&oldid=591067565#WP:ABOUTSELF.2FWP:BLPSELFPUB_caveat
• I oppose policies being updated without consensus to solve "ad hoc" issues, as Scotperry did, especially when the perceived problem with the policy is not by far a solution to the "ad hoc" issue, as is the case here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of your "alternative suggestions" still don't produce the necessary consensus that you are supposed to wait for before altering WP policy. I suspect that you may be so intent on altering Wikipedia policy like this in order to increase your current domination of some certain fringe articles. Why you think that abandoning consensus as you have here might gain you friends or influence I can't understand. Consensus is a cornerstone of Wikipedia editing. If you don't understand that after 9 years, you baffle me. Scott P. (talk) 09:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, this particular issue is my first "foray" into Wikipedia policy. You know those first edits were done by me in good faith, not yet knowing Wikipedia policy on editing policy itself. Those were not "reversions" either, they were each a different proposal, trying to find common ground. You've been working at Wikipedia policy for years and know full well what the consensus requirements are, yet you still treat the 3RR rule, and consensus requirements with complete disregard. Do you think you are somehow 'above' the rest of us? Scott P. (talk) 09:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to get back to a discussion on content...

• at WT:NPOV about the most effective content of the WP:BALASPS section;
• at A Course in Miracles and its talk page about the content of the synopsis that is really missing from the article currently. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• and, if you wish to contribute, at Template talk:Primary sources about the content of the {{primary}} template.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 09:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Francis, we are here to discuss one thing primarily, did you, or did you not just violate 3RR? And the related question, did you, or did you not get consensus before trying to foist your own personal policy rules on the rest of us, your highness. We are not here on this page to set up a WP policy debate, that is for the talk pages of policy. As I offered yesterday when you waited until I told you I had just gone to work then you went to the admin noticeboard and whined about how you weren't getting your way, if you could provide a single real proof of consensus in your attempted "unilaterally forced policy change", I would be quite happy to have allowed your edit, but how foolish do you take everyone else to be? You still haven't provided a single evidence of consensus, you try to misdirect and befuddle the conversation here, and yet you still feel you are the "offended party". I would advise you, if you really wanted a block, please just continue with your one-person-policy-debate here, continue to refuse to show evidence of consensus, and continue to hope to befuddle the rest of us with your great policy wisdom. (comment first edited at 11:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)) Last revision to comment: Scott P. (talk) 11:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected (full) for one week. I've also restored the policy back to September 11, 2014, prior to its "current" edit war. It's possible that it should be restored to an even earlier version, but for the moment, I didn't want to go there. Substantive changes to core policy without a clear consensus, generally via the Pump or by a community-wide RfC, are unacceptable. Protracted edit warring over them is blockable, but for the present I'm not meting out blocks. Nonetheless, all editors are warned that if they resume reverting after the lock expires, they may be blocked without notice. Scottperry, you are one of the more culpable editors in this battle, and to address your point ("did you, or did you not just violate 3RR"), the answer is no.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Lyme disease (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 19:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC) to 19:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
   1. 19:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 19:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 19:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Lyme disease. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 10:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Repeated removal of well sourced content in short time */ new section"

Comments:

Cluebot welcome and warning 15:12, 23 October 2014

Unconstructive editing warning 15:16, 23 October 2014

Looks like a SPA vandal. MrBill3 (talk) 10:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]