Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:Malik Shabazz reported by User:2602:306:BD61:E0F0:E835:AD18:9168:84EF (Result: Semi-protected)

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

---

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]
5. [5]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6] [7] [8]

Comments:

The problem has now been sufficiently addressed by all parties. Report again if new issues arise. EdJohnston (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Outrageous, vulgar and disruptive behavior for any editor. Far worse for an ADMIN! What kind of example is this in how to calmly and rationally resolve disagreement and edit collaboratively toward an NPOV result? 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:E835:AD18:9168:84EF (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC) I reverted three times, not four. The IP has been edit-warring all weekend (from various IPs), and the article has now been protected. I recommend the IP be given a strong warning about WP:BOOMERANG. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC) The editor just admitted he edit-warred. But his defense was that he "reverted three times, not four?" Interesting, since I don't believe it's called "4RR". But I actually listed five times. Also, the editor made absurd assertions he cannot support. Namely, who was I edit-warring with "all weekend" - and where is their 3RR complaint? And if it was "from various IPs" how in heaven does that point to me? Obviously, not all similar IPs are the same person. This editor just needs to take responsibility for his own actions, and stop finger-pointing, rationalizing and deflecting. He admitted here that he edit warred. Even before that, he dared me to report him. As though, because he's an admin, he is some entitled entity, above the rules. Perhaps he is. If he isn't blocked, like any other editor would be - and for a significant period, because of the totally unnecessary and vulgar tone he took from the beginning in the edit summaries - then I guess he's right. Also, the page certainly doesn't need IP protection. You'll notice that the last edit before protection wasn't from an IP. It was from him. But to semi-protect/block such a prominent page, over a single disagreement regarding a single word,(now addressed), is, I think, pretty excessive and unnecessarily extreme. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:E835:AD18:9168:84EF (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC) May I suggest that you actually, you know, read WP:Edit warring to see the definition of a revert and what a 3RR violation is? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC) I see. And just which part (that you seem to believe justifies your behavior) would you have me read? This part?: Which defines a revert as: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours." Or the part right below it: "any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times?" Meanwhile, may I suggest that you actually, you know, read WP:IMPARTIAL to see the definition of neutrality and what is meant by: "A neutral characterization." Or may I even suggest that you actually, you know, read WP:CIVIL to see the definition of civility and what blocking for incivility is? 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:E835:AD18:9168:84EF (talk) 04:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Did you really tell him to read WP:CIVIL even though you called him an "ignorant ass" and a "boldfaced liar"? This is truly a WP:BOOMERANG. In fact and just like he said, two of the links you provided us (here and here) are actualy self-reverts which are not counted as "reverts" per WP:EDITWAR. No matter how much you would like to WP:WIKILAWYER, it does not change anything. Ironically, you reverted four times in the last 24 hours (here: [9][10][11][12]). You also reverted twice on November 8th as well (here: [13][14] Once again, just as Malik said, you did consistently revert throughout this weekend. In the end of all of this, you will be the one blocked and not him. Better luck next time IP. AcidSnow (talk) 04:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC) AcidSnow: My questions for you would be, did you really just ignore his posts that I "cut the bullshit... your head is in the sand" and his continued personal attack calling me a "wing-nut"? Not to mention my request that he "Save your editorializing for another project." and my efforts at "neutrality"? Plus, did you really just ignore the fact that it was me who attempted compromise by leaving this message on his talk page: "I have replaced it with a less inflammatory term - since you also had problems with the word "purported." Hopefully, this resolves the issue to your satisfaction."? Yes, apparently you did. Also, I hate to burst your bubble, Acid, but just because I read newsworthy articles and reviewed their edit logs, doesn't make me every other IP who did the same. I saw recent issues raised in the edit summaries and I agreed with some of those editors. So my edits reflected that WP:CONSENSUS. Or did that common sense reality never cross your mind while you were busy leaping to your false conclusions? In fact, my first edit was a revert of a similar "looking" IP here. So, sorry, but your obvious cherry-picking, make you a pretty bad, and a pretty transparent, attack dog. So you should try again, Acid. But next time, perhaps you should stop hurling ridiculous accusations of policy vios while at the same time accusing someone else of WP:WIKILAWYER. It makes you look hypocritical. But worse, you just come off looking like a troll. And again Bbb23 , I think it does a disservice to the readers of this project to block a currently newsworthy article because of a debate over one word: that is already being addressed in this forum. That's the definition of overkill. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:E835:AD18:9168:84EF (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC) You honestly must be joking. I missed nothing and let alone was I "cherry picking". I am well aware of what Malik stated bur you had already covered it so there really was no point in repeating it. You also stated, however, "may I even suggest that you actually, you know, read WP:CIVIL to see the definition of civility and what blocking for incivility is?". Shockingly, this is comes just after you called him an "ignorant ass" and a "boldfaced liar". So it's a clear case of WP:BOOMERANG to tell him to be civil when you fail to do the same, which is very hypocritical. You even created a false Edit War Report and attempted to pass two edits as reverts when their not (once again see WP:EDITWAR). That being said, it doesn't matter wither or not you had "consensus" "backing you up" nor does going to the talk page first change anything; what does matter is who broke 3RR even after they were warned not to do so. Ironically, you don't even bother to refute the evidence ([15], [16], [17], [18], [19], and [20]) that I brought forth regarding your consistent reverts throughout this weekend. That being said, this IP that was edit waring earlier this weekend is yours which once again rDNS confirms (yours and pervious IP). This IP not only comes from the country, but also the same state and city. In fact, they are edit warring on the same article and even the same issue! Coincidence? Highly unlikely. You can deny this all you want but it's don't change reality. As anyone can see, none of my statements were "ridiculous" which you oddly claim them to be so. By the way, calling me an "attack dog" and a "troll" after I asked you to remain civil does not help your case even the slightest but rather greatly diminishes it. Nor do I get anything if you or Malik is blocked. So better luck next time IP. But In the end of all of this, I will encourage you once again to remain WP:CIVIL. AcidSnow (talk) 05:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC) Acid, pull up a chair. This is going to take a while. There is an old saying, attributed to Einstein, that: "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" is the definition of insanity. By that definition, you must be certifiable. Because for what purpose do you continue this harangue? I suspect you're just one of those unpleasant little people who is taken with the sound of your own voice. While I won't give you the incessant platform you clearly crave I will address the nonsense that are your various claims this one final time. But first, we have to establish foundation and you have to establish your standing in this discussion. So the obvious first question is: "Who the hell are you?" A review of your personal page is, perhaps fittingly, obtuse. Hello, my name is AcidSnow...... says nothing. But even more telling than what it says, is what it doesn't. It doesn't say you're an admin. It doesn't say you've been entrusted with any particular rights or privileges by this community. But further review does say your account has only been around since 2013 - yet you spend an unusual and inordinate amount of time on messageboards; and pages so obscure that, over a year later, your last edit on them is still the most current. But how any of that qualifies you to insert yourself into this particular discussion has yet to explained. As you are personally powerless to impact this process. Nor have you established any direct relevance, if any, that you have to it. But now having established that you failed to pass voir dire here, on even the most basic level, I'll nonetheless address (again) your various and specious claims. If you had even the slightest concept of balance, you actually would have avoided my claim that you were blatantly cherry-picking the record to craft your attack at me. If you had any notion of balance you would have said "yes Malik did this, but so did you." Instead the best you could muster was this tripe: "I am well aware of what Malik stated but you had already covered it so there really was no point in repeating it." To use another of your favorite phrases: "You honestly must be joking." But then you doubled down on your own hypocrisy, by then feeling the need to "repeat" the same nonsense you posted originally. To quote you again: "there really was no point in repeating in." But yet, you did! I guess there are no mirrors in your world. So here again - and for the last time - are your answers. More than, frankly, you deserve. Because once again: "Who the hell are you?" I correctly pointed out the section regarding blocking for incivility, which you've referenced now twice. But where have you even once acknowledged Shabazz's original comments or condemned him for making them - which caused my mentioning that section in the first place? Nowhere. So that reduces your "condemnation" to that of a one-sided hack. Feel free to quote me, because, based upon your actions, the characterization is entirely accurate. You're like the clueless and incompetent ref who calls a personal foul for the retaliation and does nothing about the originating offense. Quote me there too. You - or Shabazz - insults me? I let you know what an insult feels like. That isn't uncivility. That's retributive justice. This isn't a church and I don't "turn the other cheek." Besides, he - and now you - have made a false claim twice. That I edited "all weekend" when I edited one day. Second, you keep regurgitating WP:EDITWAR while you are clearly oblivious to WP:3RR within it. Please read it so you'll actually understand the rules you're quoting. My report factually chronicled his edits. There's no way to falsify the edit log. It is what it is. Regarding your claim about what "matters" WP:CONSENSUS always matters. It is a policy here. I suggest you read that too. While you're at it, also read WP:TALKDONTREVERT because, despite your failure to mention it, that is exactly what I did here, here and here. And again, I was the one who warned Shabazz about 3RR here and even noted his continued edit warring after that here. So before you make claims, you would be wise to get your facts straight. Regarding the IP issue, already asked and answered. I worked on a current and newsworthy article. One that hundreds, if not thousands, of people read just this past weekend - because it was in the news. The fact that I also read the edit history, because I found something of concern in the article and saw that others had found the same thing, would be unspectacular to all but the most myopic conspiracy theorists, like you. The fact that my IP is also in a major city populated by a few million people would also be unremarkable to all - but the conspiracy theorists like you. They're not all me. In fact, you also ignored the fact that my very fist edit was to undo another similar IP from the same - wait for it - country, state and city (apparently)! But maybe in your conspiracy world, I undid myself just to later, throw you off the scent. And FYI, other editors have addressed the exact same issue I did, since we started here! But in your conspiracy world, maybe we're all just the same person! Just wow. It would be laughable if it wasn't so ridiculous. Because you do make a truly ridiculous prosecutor. Which once again, begs the prevailing question: "Who the hell are you?" Finally, here's the way it works, since you've also consistently failed to assume good faith, I'm really not feeling particularly constrained by your vacuous calls for "civility." Your entire attacks have been decidedly uncivil. So here's the bottomline: if you lie about me, my actions, or my intentions, then you're a liar. Plain and simple. I said Shabazz was a liar for no other reason than that he was. You've made the same claims, so you too are a liar. You've maligned me with no proof. That's called lying. If you find that uncivil, then the solution is simple: really, just stop being a liar. So, better luck next time to you, Acid. But in the end of all this I will encourage you in future, to a) get your facts straight before you go tilting at windmills and making asinine and unsubstantiated accusations; and b) stop sticking your nose where it doesn't belong. Someone far less civil than myself, is very likely to take offense. And the response, which you will have entirely deserved, won't be nearly as measured as mine has been. And will likely and justifiably be decidedly more uncivil. Meanwhile, what I can't help but notice, loyal Sancho, is that even Shabazz, has had preciously little to say lately in his own defense. Likely because even he now knows he went too far. As an editor, but esp. as an admin. If he can't hold himself to a higher standard, then he's in no position to balk at anyone else. So while you've been yapping, all we've heard from him is crickets. But apparently, that's just the arrogance that comes with the knowledge that his fellow admins wouldn't block him, no matter how deserving or egregious his conduct is. Policies, no matter how sacrosanct, are only enforced based upon who is breaking them. And depending on that, if you complain about the wrong person, the open secret here is that you'll submit yourself to a chorus of folks shouting WP:BOOMERANG. It's actually quite funny. It's certainly not how the policy is written, but clearly it's how it is enforced and the game is played around here. I request a block for edit warring and instead the page itself gets blocked - er, "semi-protected" - but only for all IPs. Yet curiously, neither individual party was blocked. So I guess both editors were right, and the page was wrong. Funny what passes for a proper solution around here, isn't it? This, even after I've already said I'm done with that article. But no matter. In the caste system that is WP, IPs are the untouchables. Nevermind WP:URIP2. Also, no need to wonder why having my own account does not appeal to me in the least. But the truly saddest part that you, and the actual admins on this board have consistently failed to address, is why we're here. Which is because I complained about an edit that was biased on a BLP and I tried - several times - to rewrite it neutrally. If you don't understand that, you can review everything from WP:BLP to WP:NPOV and everything in between. That's the real issue here and yet it's the one thing you consistently have avoided addressing because you wanted to talk about other crap. And you'll likely want to continue this too. But we're done here. I won't ever change your mind and you're not the type to ever admit you're wrong. And ultimately, it really doesn't matter what you think. Because for the final time: "Who the hell are you?" SO yup, we're done. Have the last word. But I won't bother to come back here to read it. I'm done feeding the troll. Whew, that was long! But in the words of Shabazz, to "cut through this bullshit" it had to be done. The End. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:E835:AD18:9168:84EF (talk) 11:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC) Once again, you have failed to listen or at least stop your attacks against people on Wikipedia. Normally in these situations I would just leave, but seeing how you have chosen to blacken my name by still calling me a "troll" along with a "liar", "incompetent", "clueless", and "ridiculous" even after I asked you to stop for the second time. Ironically, this shows how "civil" you are even though you claim to be. First, off not being admin doesn't change anything. I may not posses any of the things you call "privileges" but that doesn't ban me from being Involved in discussion here or anywhere else. Nor does not having a completely User Page change the fact that I am a long standing contribute here on Wikipedia. That being said I have yet to make any WP:PERSONALATTACKS against you or any one else on Wikipedia. Ironically, I can't say the same about you ("ignorant ass", "boldfaced liar", "attack dog", and "troll"). Calling someone out for their mistakes and failing to adhere to Wikipedias polices aren't personal attacks which you oddly claim them to be. So you fail to understand WP:PERSONALATTACKS. If you truly believe that I have made a personal attack against you then why don't you make a report? You seem very confident that I did so the report should go smoothly. Anyways, you seem to love to WP:WIKILAWYER but fail to understand other policies as well, for example WP:Edit War. If you had actually read it instead of only asking other to, you would know that It clearly states: "The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR: Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting")". This is quite relevant seeing how you accused him of violating 3RR. In fact, two of his edits are clearly self-reverts (this one and this one), which according to the policy don't count. As anyone can see, not only did he not break it you also created a false Edit War Report. Ironically this comes after you demanded others to read the policy. So it's not surprising that your the one who broke 3RR by revert four times: here, here, here, and here. In regards to Malik's statements were you claim I don't condemn them, I did. I suggest you read WP:CONSENSUS and it's regards to it: "If no one responds, you have silent consensus ". So I clearly did acknowledge it and did condemn it by not going into detail. So my actions weren't a "one-sided hack" which you foolishly claim them to be. Consensus may count in regards to editing Wikipedia but not at the Edit War Noticeboard where one is discussing violating another policy which doesn't need it. Not only did you fail to comprehend WP:EDITWAR and WP:CONSENSUS, the same can be said about WP:BOOMERANG. You state that your actions don't reflect "this policy". First off, it's not a policy at all in fact, it's simply just a concept. So it's quite clear that you haven't even read the majority of policies that you have asked others to read. That being said, the essay states: "In other cases a person might complain about another editor's actions in an incident, yet during the events of that incident they've committed far worse infractions themselves.". This is exactly what's going on in this discussion. You oddly claim that: "not how the policy is written", when it certainly is! Shockingly, you also fail to understand the simplest of policies such as assuming good faith. I will quote the policy once again since you refuse to believe anything that I have stated: "When doubt is cast on good faith, continue to assume good faith yourself when possible. Be civil and follow dispute resolution procedures, rather than attacking editors or edit-warring with them". You, however, did the complete opposite by making numerous personal attacks, edit warring, and ultimately violating 3RR (here's all the diffs for everyone to see: [21], [22], [23],[24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], and [30]). Ironically, you accuse me of failing to do the same. This is quite the opposite and if you had actually read the policy you would know this as well: "If you wish to express doubts about the conduct of fellow Wikipedians, please substantiate those doubts with specific diffs and other relevant evidence, so that people can understand the basis for your concerns". As anyone can see, none of my actions were personal attack let alone disruptive.This exactly what I did. Anyways, ,that IP you reverted does not come the from the same location as you. It may live in the same country but not the same state let alone city which even rDNS confirms (yours and theirs. As I stated earlier, you were a matter of fact edit warring throughout this weekend with this IP. As pointed out earlier, both of you come from the same country, but also the same state and city. In fact, they are edit warring on the same article and even the same issue! In other words, it's simply just you which a simple rDNS check can confirm (yours and theirs). In fact, the IP stops editing on Wikipedia upon your "arrival". Coincidence? Highly unlikely. If it isn't you why don't you just message it and ask it to defend you? Oh wait you can't because it's a Static IP and you don't poses it now. You can deny this all you want but you can't gain the system. That being said, I wouldn't need to responded to any of your other replies seeing how your "done feeding the trolls". Which is basically "when the heat gets to hot" you choose to run. So better luck next time IP. AcidSnow (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected (semi) for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Way to go, my friend. "Bad page!" 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:E835:AD18:9168:84EF (talk) 12:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

In regards to Bbb23 protection of the page, it was for the best. Your a static IP and blocking you won't do us any good since you can just reappear as another IP. This is exactly what you did when your router pushed you into a fresh IP that had yet to be used on Wikipedia. That being said, protecting it squashes all of your IPs in move. AcidSnow (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Ryulong reported by User:Tutelary (Result: No action)

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

---

Page

Gamergate controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by Torga (talk): Unsourced and undiscussed changes. (TW)"
2. 05:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Torga (talk): Bring up your proposed changes on the article's talk page when they are challenged with a revert. (TW)"
3. 05:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633192207 by Torga (talk)"
4. 05:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "this is a ref that NorthBySouthBaranof mistakenly doubled that was then removed from the article text but not from the references list; note that this ref is identical to the one IDed as "OTMGrant""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This will be the third time I have reported Ryulong here. The first time was the 15RR report which was marked Stale 15 hours later, 2nd time was an amicable solution of remaining and urging himself to 3RR, and this time, fragrantly breaking 3RR in that same promise. Tutelary (talk) 05:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Where is the attempt to resolve the dispute? Or the warning to the user? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Fixing someone else's mistake in reverting something wrong should not be considered a revert here. I'm not at 3RR.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Tarc reverted Torga. Torga reverted back. You reverted Torga. Additionally, Ryulong is an ex administrator. Ryulong has been on this site for years and has 200k edits. I have to assume by now that they are competent enough to monitor their own reverts. Tutelary (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I reverted Torga three times, made an unrelated edit, and saw that Tarc and Torga were now edit warring over that unrelated edit rather than what Torga was originally trying to put onto the article. That re-correction should not count as a revert.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Note. It looks to me like Ryulong is correct in his analysis, but I'd like to hear from Tarc.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Two cents Ryulong's repeated presence on this board is neither coincidental or innocuous. At some point somebody with the tools required should take into account the broad ramifications of his continued battle ground mentality on the small slice of this project which manages to engender so much anger. At some point the possessive, yet technically permissible, agitation needs to stop. It's rare that an editor so vulgar and aggressive is given a pass, so many times. GraniteSand (talk) 09:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

What does this have to do with anything?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It has to do with your endless presence here because you're combative and rude. But, I'd imagine you knew that. GraniteSand (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors taking potshots at participants from the sidelines is not helpful. Tarc (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, there was a bit of confusion within that specific time frame. Torga, a single-purpose account who has done little but edit-war against consensus and post continuous screeds about same on the talk page, was up to the usual. During the attempts to restore the neutral and supported-by-sources text, Ryulong and I appeared to overlap, as when I thought I was removing Torga's junk, it was in fact accidentally restoring an unused ref. Ryulong's edit to fix this was a revert in the technical sense, but it was to fix my error. It should not be counted towards anything. The filer needs to be reminded that in the future, it'd be a good idea if he actually investigated first rather than simply making 1, 2, 3, 4 tic marks on a tally sheet. Tarc (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Declined. Thanks, Tarc. Based on the unusual sequence of events, I'm not taking any action against Ryulong.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It's intolerable. It used to be that if you could not use the site without breaking the rules every day you'd be warned not to 3RR, even if you thought you had an excuse, and that would be the end of it, or else there would be another end to it. It's not intolerable that Ryulong would behave in such a way because humans are humans, but it is untolerable that they are praised for it regularly and that most of the editors they encounter are new and take or are blamed for sock puppetry. why are there not so many sock puppets on the contested articles where people do not behave like Ryulong? But who cares. This site is about making a laugh and a name for yourself isn't it? Isn't that why we all use our real names? Ryulong is brought to this page many times per week and even 15rr does not illicit an admin intervention. Culturing a hostile environment. ~ R.T.G 16:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Somebody please tell me I'm seeing things. The subject of an ANI removes a negative comment about them [31] and gets nothing but a friendly revert? [32] Hello? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 06:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

My bad, the negative comment was a procedural error because the ANI was closed. I got it. I still would have preferred the late comment be removed by an "uninvolved" party. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 06:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Winkelvi reported by User:Choor monster (Result: Restrictions lifted)

Page: Helen Hooven Santmyer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Winkelvi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [33]

Comments:

This is a continuation of a previous report, now archived, of me by Winkelvi: [34] That concluded with: "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" The edit diff'ed above removed "obscurely" (my text), without attempting to use the Talk page first, as per EdJohnston's instructions. Choor monster (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm completely confused. Further, this report seems petty to me and not in the best interest of the article. I wasn't trying to edit war or cause disruption. There was a cite needed tag there for weeks, nothing was produced cite-wise to prove the book was published "obscurely". To me, the use of "obscurely" seems/seemed POV and unencyclopedic -- especially without any kind of reference to support it. I was perusing the article recently, saw the tag had been untouched and nothing referenced applied, so I simply removed the word. I honestly didn't even remember that it was a bone of contention prior to that. No edit warring intended. If he has something to add reference-wise to support use of "obscurely", I certainly see no reason then why the adjective can't be put back in. But to accuse me of edit warring in what appears to be an obvious move toward retribution is looking for punitive action, not something that will keep disruption from occurring at the article. Indeed, this report smells quite disruptive to me. There was no attempt from Choor Monster to discuss on the talk page further after the last post I put up there nearly a month ago (see here:[35]). In fact, four days after I last posted on the article talk page, Choor Monster put a barnstar on my talk page that stated "A barnstar for fixing peacock language and other minor fixes on Helen Hooven Santmyer" (see here:[36]). To say I'm completely confused by this report in light of all this is an understatement. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Note. It looks to me like one of the bones of contention in early October was over the material you just changed (removing the word obscurely). The only issue for me is whether after a bit over a month from EdJohnston's warning, you should be blocked. Although it has nothing to do with conduct, the word "obscurely" is supported in the cite to the NYT obituary, although I might have worded the material in the article slightly differently. My weak inclination is to block you (self-reverting might help, btw), but I'm punting this to Ed.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

As I said, Bbb23, I am not in any way trying to be disruptive. I have no problem self-reverting, but do wish other wording would be used. Reading "obscurely" in the obituary doesn't convince me that it's really the case. In fact, if anything, it seems that some too-close paraphrasing has occurred by lifting the term directly from the obituary. Moreover, I now remember noting the too-close paraphrasing of sources back in October, this just further solidifies it. Especially without a better source than the obituary to support that the book was "obscurely" publiished. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Done [37]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't a complete revert, but you did restore the word "obscurely". Choor monster, are you okay with closing this with no action based on Winkelvi's good faith revert? BTW, Winkelvi, the NYT obituary is a perfectly reliable source.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that obituaries are considered reliable sources for factual information such as family names, dates, and the like. That said, celebrity obituaries in the NYT are frequently written by writers who choose to use prose and embellished language in tribute rather than just reporting the facts about an individual. "Obscurely" is used, but why is it used? There is no explanation as to why the author of the obituary believes Ohio University Press published the novel in obscurity. We wouldn't accept such vagueness in an article (it wouldn't pass GA or FA without explanation) so why are we accepting it as it is just because it was included in the obituary? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with your take on the obit, but, no matter. It's a content issue and, as such, you can go the usual route of seeking a consensus on what belongs and what doesn't belong in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with User:Winkelvi's self-revert which restores 'obscurely'. But why isn't it possible to clarify the wording? The obituary explains (a) only a few hundred copies were sold by Ohio State University Press, (b) they didn't normally publish novels (Per the Edwin McDowell article in the NYT). So the point of 'obscurely' is that the novel didn't come to general attention. The original 'obscure' publication is intended to contrast with the 'real' publication by G. P. Putnam's Sons a few years later. If we keep only the word 'obscurely' in our summary it loses the meaning of the original. It doesn't need any further citation since the facts come from the obituary and the other NYT article. It just needs the context to be explained better. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Considering your response further, Ed, it seems the appropriate thing would be for Choor monster to make that change, unless he indicates here he would be fine with me making the change. Whatever the case, I'm now wondering how long it will be before we are free to freely edit the article and if the no reverts mandate is interminable. Further clarification would be appreciated. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Any evidence of cooperation between the two of you would be enough reason to lift the mandate. It would be a good idea for User:Choor monster to respond to the list of proposals you put on the talk page on October 11. EdJohnston (talk) 02:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Ed, you are reading the Talk page incorrectly. WV made a short list on 10/7, I gave a long detailed response the same day of how WV was incorrect on several of those issues, and on 10/11, WV gave a one-line unindented WP:IDHT. I believe the lack of indentation is fooling you. I think you meant to say it would be of interest for WV to respond to my list: for example, actually explaining his reasons for standing by the misreading of a source I pinpointed.
• As for the slipshod status the article is in, refs and all. Well, no kidding. I was in the middle of editing the article in bits and pieces, slowly assimilating all the WP:RS I'd found on Santmyer, when WV comes in and without bothering to even discuss things, elevates this to the noticeboard. That, to me, is blatant bad faith, especially after his previous "nyeah nyeah nyeah" on his talk page [38] that he plans to continue to Template my talk page, and lo and behold, this edit-war he set up happens one week later. With Ed's mandate and WV's WP:IDHT, it seemed obvious there was nothing doable.
• As I said in my 10/7 response, I agree there is a lot of work needed. As an experiment, I am willing to go ahead and start editing the article again with the understanding that Ed's mandate is suspended. My first edit will be to remove the refs-needed tag at the top (but not the section cites-needed tag). My second edit will be a cite to a source—one of the "Hollywood people", actually—saying "[the OSUP edition] sold approximately 200 copies and probably would have experienced a short, obscure literary life if not for an extraordinary, fortuitous series of events." (emphasis mine) The next round of edits will mostly be to implement the changes supported by my 10/7 list and to which WV never actually replied. If for one week things look good with interested parties watching, excellent. If not, rollback the article and unsuspend the mandate.
• Note that my time is generally tight this semester, so I sometimes take a day or two to actually respond. Choor monster (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Result: OK, back to normal editing and there are no more restrictions on either of you. If a new edit war breaks out the usual rules apply. And, if either party makes a new 3RR report without evidence of trying any WP:Dispute resolution the results may not be good. EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Mcgyver2k reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: No action)

Page

Myles Munroe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Mcgyver2k (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 16:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC) to 16:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
   1. 16:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Biography */"
   2. 16:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Awards */"
   3. 16:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Awards */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 16:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC) to 17:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
   1. 16:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Awards */"
   2. 17:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Awards */"
   3. 17:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Awards */"
3. 18:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 18:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC) ""
5. 19:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC) ""
6. 19:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633267882 by Winkelvi (talk)"
7. 19:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Awards */"
8. 20:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Awards */"
9. 00:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Awards */"
10. Consecutive edits made from 00:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC) to 00:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    1. 00:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC) ""
    2. 00:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC) ""
11. 04:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Awards */ Fixed an alleged claim that was proven false"
12. 04:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Awards */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Myles Munroe. (TW)"
2. 21:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* November 2014 */ customize"
3. 21:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* November 2014 */ resp"
4. 22:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* November 2014 */ resp"
5. 22:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* November 2014 */ +"
6. 22:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* November 2014 */ cmt"
7. 22:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* November 2014 */ fix"
8. 00:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 20:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Good edits coming */ resp"
2. 20:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Good edits coming */ indent"
3. 20:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Con artist is dead */ rem defamatory comments per wp:blp as blp standards apply for up to two years after article subject's death"
4. 20:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* OBE (Order of the British Empire) citation missing */ resp to mcgyver2k"
5. 21:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* OBE (Order of the British Empire) citation missing */ resp"
6. 21:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Using honorary degrees as titles */ resp"
7. 22:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* OBE (Order of the British Empire) citation missing */ add sinebot sig"
8. 22:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* OBE (Order of the British Empire) citation missing */ resp to mcgyver"
9. 00:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Using honorary degrees as titles */ resp"
10. 00:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC) "/* OBE (Order of the British Empire) citation missing */ resp to mcgyver"

Comments:

Issue over this content is still in discussion at the resolution noticeboard, but Mcgyver2k refuses to stop edit warring over this content. Yes, I have also reverted him several times, but only in the interest of keeping the article as it is with the referenced content. I have attempted several times to explain that a reliable source gives credence to keeping the OBE title in the article, Mcgyver2k refuses to listen. He insists on edit warring. I was more than willing to go through the resolution process he started, but have met with hostility and a brick wall with him there, as well. The edit warring over this needs to stop - but, more importantly, I think that the editor needs to understand that referenced content meets the threshold of inclusion. A separate matter, but playing heavily into his actions is a misunderstanding of verifiability policy. Not looking for punishment, just a stop to the disruption and combative nature of Mcgyver's editing at this article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I used her own source to discredit her so she is all upset now. My source is the most definitive one available. I poste a list of ALL recipients for the year in question and Myles Munroe is not one of them. Should be case closed.voiceofreason 05:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgyver2k (talk • contribs)

• Note. Seems like both of you have been edit warring for the last couple of days.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Not really. The article was just semi-protected. It's been quite active with vandalism and IP edits because of the death yesterday of the article subject, his wife, and daughter in a plane crash. Mcgyver2k went to dispute resolution, I participated, he refused to wait for the process to work, started reverting again even though we were still in the midst of discusssion there. Myself and another editor tried to discuss with him at the article talk page, the edit warring from Mcgyver2k continued. My most recent reverts of Mcgyver's removal of content were because discussion was still in process and change in content/consensus/agreement had not yet happened. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Result: No action. According to the report at WP:DRN, both parties have agreed to leave the OBE out of the article until discussions are concluded. This agreement was said to have happened about 22:00 on 11 November and I see no reverts since then, so it appears to be holding. I'll remind User:Mcgyver2k that believing you are correct is not a defence to WP:3RR. Also there is a problem with Mcgyver2k's signature that I'll explain on that editor's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

User:RGloucester reported by User:PBS (Result: Resolved)

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

---

Page: Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RGloucester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is not a 3RR report but a request to stop an editor edit-warring on a talk page in the Wikipedia name space.

Version before reverts: [39]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• diff, Initial talk page edit by user:PBS Revision as of 12:43, 11 November 2014 -- edit comment: "Problems with the consensus and problems with the wording"
• diff, Revert by user:RGloucester, Revision as of 14:01, 11 November -- "Go away, and restate your opinion for the millionth time elsewhere."

Interlude on User talk:RGloucester (diff)

== You should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission ==

"The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." (WP:TPOC).

You do not have permission to delete my comments as you did here. I am going to revert your delete. If you revert my revert then I will take it to AN/I. -- PBS (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll follow the more subtle approach of ignoring everything you write, going forward, and collapsing all remarks by you that are disruptive. Thank you for your time. I hope you remember that you're not allowed on this page. You ought not breech that restriction, lest you face God's wrath. RGloucester — ☎ 19:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• diff, revert by PBS, 19:47, 11 November 2014 -- "You should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission"
• diff, collapse template used by RGloucester 19:48, 11 November 2014 -- collapse disruptive forum-shopping

Given the last sentence of RGloucester's talk page comment "I hope you remember that you're not allowed on this page. You ought not breech that restriction, lest you face God's wrath." I decided to bring the issue here rather than comment again on RGloucester's talk page.

The use of template {{collapse top}} in this situation is a breach of the lead in WP:Refactoring, the advise in the documentation of {{collapse top}} and WP:TALK:

• "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted."
• "These templates should only be used in accordance with the Wikipedia:Refactoring guideline; they should never be used to end a discussion over the objections of other editors, except in cases of unambiguous disruptive editing."
• [alledged] "Off-topic posts: If a discussion goes off-topic ... editors may hide it using the templates {{collapse top}}... —these templates should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors."

Comments:
I (PBS) object to the refactoring of my comments with the use of the template {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} by an RGloucester who is an involved editor.

Desired outcome by PBS

I do not want this to escalate into more of an edit war (so I brought it here) rather than revert RGloucester collapse, and I do not want any administrative action taken against RGloucester, instead could someone get RGloucester to either revert the collapse or allow me to without any further edit warring. -- PBS (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not actually involved in this, but surely there is a threshold beyond which one as gone too far? Regardless of the outcome here, such a comment as that by RGloucester may be deemed as threatening (in some manner, depending on interpretation and other things which I will not go into at the moment), and even if he was completely non-serious, still should not be reasonably allowable. (Non-administrator comment) Dustin (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Ha! Monsieur le PBS seems to have been quite cursory in his examination of the situation, given that I decided to remove the collapsing half-an-hour before he filed this report. I decided that I would let his absurdity stand, for all to see, much like a tired old man whinging whilst bound in the village stocks. He may have briefly broken out of said stocks to ramble over to this forum, but he is whinging all the same. RGloucester — ☎ 21:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

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

User:98.234.107.204 reported by User:Aura24 (Result: Declined)

Page: Spyro (series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.234.107.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [40]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [41] Repeatedly adds in false detail about cancelled Legend of Spyro movie being "confirmed", that wasn't mentioned anywhere in the source provided.
2. [42]
3. [43]
4. [44]

Comments Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [46]

Comments:

Since March 2014, User:98.234.107.204 has also been adding the same false information on the cancelled The Legend of Spyro 3D movie many many times for months on movie release date articles without providing any official sources whatsoever that shows evidence of the Legend of Spyro movie being made (it was confirmed to have been cancelled back in 2009). He just recently started adding the false info again on the Spyro (series) article, and shows no signs of stopping. -- Aura24 (talk) 06:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Declined. The IP has been warned of the unsourced change only twice (both times this month). Not even enough warnings to justify a block for vandalism. The edits have been few and far between for the most part. You or someone else reverts them each time. You've never warned the IP for edit warring, although given the nature of the "war", that's understandable. You didn't even notify the IP of this report. I see no reason to take action on this board.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Prisonermonkeys reported by User:Thegreyanomaly (Result: Both warned)

Page: Assassin's Creed Rogue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Prisonermonkeys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [47] (In short, the user keeps deleting the "Ties with Unity" section)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Diff of 06:39, 11 November 2014
2. Diff of 19:58, 11 November 2014
3. Diff of 22:37, 11 November 2014
4. Diff of 06:18, 12 November 2014

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

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

Comments:
This user has started an edit war on this page. They keep removing this section on the technicality that the whole game synopsis has not been written yet. When this game was released it was strongly noted by Ubisoft that the game would have a clear tie to Assassin's Creed Unity, which came out on the same day. That information needs to be on the page. This user keeps removing that section for no policy-based reasons. If you think a section is incomplete, you either fix the problem or put an incomplete notice on it, not remove it. Actions need to be taken against this user. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Also to be clear, the only reason that I did not revert the third or fourth revert (which is still active) is because I would rather not accumulate three reverts in 24 hours myself. I am waiting for someone else to fix the problem or for my reverts in 24 hours to drop to 1. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

As I have repeatedly outlined on the talk page, the information does not need to be on the page. It is "information" that is presented without any kind of context whatsoever, which is what my issue with it was. There may not be a specific Wikipedia policy that applies here, but when did we need a policy for common sense? Given that Thegreyanomaly has admitted he waited for editing to continue, I consider his actions here to be an attack on myself, demanding admin action to try and silence an editor who he does not agree with. He has made no effort to resolve the issue, instead accusing me of trying to introduce censorship into the article on the grounds that I don't want the article to contain spoilers. At every step, he has been aggressive and under-handed, trying to force edits through with no discussion or attempt at resolving the problem. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Regardless whether your edit is justified or not, you cannot unilaterally revert a page four times in 24 hours. I am not the only user to revert you. I have made efforts to resolve the issue, you didn't show up at the talk page until right before your third revert. Reporting a user for edit-warring is not attacking. If the section lacks context, you note that the section is incomplete or complete it, but you do not remove it. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You haven't made any efforts. You showed up, posted what amounted to "NOPE" and ignored WP:AGF. You decided what you wanted the article to say before you considered the arguments. Then you arbitrarily ruled on the best direction for the article to take, despite the way you're involved in a content dispute. The fact is, you're using 3RR and SPOLIERS to try and shut editors who disagree with you up. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I did not make any rulings. I just noted you have no policy to back you up. "Editors" is a little much, as you are the only one deleting the section. My 24 hours since my first revert is up. I have re-added the section and partly expanded it Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, I showed up to the talk page rightfully saying nope, because before you changed your story, your edit summary was "The game hasn't been released yet, so this is completely unverifiable," which complete nonsense as people had the game and live footage. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Give me one good reason why I should heed any of that when you have taken up edit-warring yourself? You might be outside the 24 hour window, but your most recent edits to the page, push your preferred version. That's edit-warring. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You told me the section was incomplete, I contributed towards completing it and cited a reliable IGN source in my claims. Two reverts in 24 hours from a user without a history of edit-warring is not edit-warring. You are the only one who wants your version, it's more like I am pushing against your preferred version of which only you prefer. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Warned both Thegreyanomaly and Prisonermonkeys that any more reverts of any kind in this article may be met with blocks without notice. Prisonermonkeys clearly breached 3RR. Thegreyanomaly reverted three times in 24 hours, not two, as a third revert was without being logged in (admitted). Although their third revert was outside the 24-hour window, it was ill-advised to revert after filing this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Bbb23: You are miscounting Revision as of 21:45, 11 November 2014 = 1 (me logged out) Revision as of 21:26, 12 November 2014 = 2. Two in 24 hours. The "zeroth" revert was before 21:26, 11 November 2014, it was 18:14. You are miscounting, and I had made it clear in the report that I would revert when my count fell. Also, you are letting a user with a clear cut history of edit-warring go unscathed. That is highly problematic. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thegreyanomaly, you are correct; I miscounted. You reverted twice in a 24-hour window. I've struck the language in my warning above and reworded the last sentence. My warning still stands, despite the difference in the number of reverts. Your announcement here doesn't let you off the hook. That said, if another administrator wants to take a different action, I have no objection. I will also give the matter some more thought.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

User:GeorgeLees1975 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Indeffed)

Page

Akrotiri and Dhekelia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

GeorgeLees1975 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633548015 by Thomas.W (talk) Undoing repeated revision made without talk or explaination"
2. 17:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633546448 by Dr.K. (talk) Revision made by Dr.K has made while refusing to talk. Please comment on the talk page before deleting sections of useful sources thanks"
3. 17:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633544409 by Thomas.W (talk) Dr K and Watts seem to be the same person and do not explain their removal of useful information except to claim I am someone I am not."
4. 16:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633543522 by Dr.K. (talk)"
5. 16:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631928400 by Dr.K. (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Akrotiri and Dhekelia. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• Discussion on talk

Comments:

Brand new account, probable sock. Very first edit of account to undo my reversal of the OR edit by CU blocked sock Gasmonitor. He is rapid-fire edit-waring, reinstating an edit by Gasmonitor: diff while adding the SYNTH map of indeffed Alexyflemming which has been rejected on the talkpage. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: The sock is edit-warring even as this report is active. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not a "sock" I think the information you have removed is relevant, interesting and well sourced and discussed (one sided as nobody resopnded to me before repeatedly reverting my edits but still). I can not help thinking there is a modicum of bias in this removal of information Kind regars (George Lees) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeLees1975 (talk • contribs)

• It is, pr WP:DUCK, a very clear case of socking: same edits as indefinitely blocked Alexyflemming, with same style edit summaries and on the same article, edit-warring to get the same OR image, a self-made map, into Akrotiri and Dhekelia. As for Gasmonitor I have no comment, since I'm not familiar with that editor, but I have no doubts about the connection between GeorgeLees1975 and Alexyflemming. Thomas.W ^talk 17:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Never heard of him - just because I think his references on the Cypriot sea are useful does not make me the same person! Can you discuss the actual issue - it seems to me to be well soursed from original texts George Lees

We did previously discuss the 'actual' issue at quite some length, and I've replied to you on the article's talk page as well. 83.168.23.138 (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment He's now moved on to throwing personal attacks. 83.168.23.138 (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• He just announced his purpose on Wikipedia. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely as a sock of Alexyflemming by HJ Mitchell. Thomas.W ^talk 19:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

User:Roscelese reported by User:Padresfan94 (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [50]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [51]
2. [52]
3. [53]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Abortion articles are under community sanctions and cannot be reverted more than 1 time in a day. Roscelese has been warned and blocked about this many times. Padresfan94 (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments:
Abortion articles are under community sanctions and cannot be reverted more than 1 time in a day. Roscelese made 3 reverts on the Care Net page in 1 afternoon. Roscelese has been warned and blocked about this many times. Padresfan94 (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm busy trying to improve the article by discussing the issue on the talk page with the user I was initially in disagreement with, and the second edit here is the result of our discussion and compromise. Padresfan is a SPA stalking me (check out that lack of participation in the discussion) and I expect this report to be the WP:BOOMERANG this user deserves. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

So you don't deny that you made 3 reverts on an article under community sanctions? Padresfan94 (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• A couple of thoughts: first of all, while this article arguably falls under the abortion general sanctions, the article did not bear a talk-page notice nor an edit notice notifying editors of those restrictions (I've since added them). I'm loathe to block someone without warning on a page which displayed no visible indication that it was subject to 1RR, and would be inclined to instead warn Roscelese and insist she adhere to the 1RR on the article now that notice has been given.

  Separately, we generally make allowances for reverting sockpuppets of blocked or banned editors and other inappropriate alternate accounts. Padresfan94 (talk · contribs) is an obvious sockpuppet, and a combative agenda-driven single-purpose account on top of that (e.g. [54]). As such, I'm inclined to block the account indefinitely, but first would like additional administrator input. MastCell ^Talk 22:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

This does not seem appropriate. If Padersfan94 is a SPA or suspected sock puppet (and looking over his/her edits, I'm not actually convinced that's the case) but if that is actually the concern, then the issue should be brought to the appropriate board. It doesn't justify edit warring or violating community sanction. Also, I recall Roscelese was very recently brought to this board by another user [55] regarding violation of the 1RR on abortion related articles, for an article I was editing, and I purposely did not comment because although there was a 1RR violation, the issue was resolved and I don't believe blocks should be punitive. It was closed with reminders of the 1RR restriction on abortion related articles to all participants. A violation of 1RR shortly after reminder seems to warrant some type of action--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Of the 3 reverts that Roscelese fired off that afternoon, only 1 on them was directed at material that I wrote. Even of you want to entertain that "I had to break 1RR because this guy who already passed a chekuser is totally a sockpuppet" nonsense, that still wouldn't explain the other 2 reverts. Padresfan94 (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You "already passed a checkuser", Padresfan94? What do you mean? Please name the checkuser who checked you. Bishonen | talk 23:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC).

Roscelese already filed a sockpuppet investigation against me when I was editing as an ip. Give me a moment to go find it. Padresfan94 (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

This I can now see that it was actually Contaldo80 that filed the report. As he and Rosclese edit the same articles at the same time from the same POV you will understand if I occasionally get them confused. Padresfan94 (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The comment that you linked to was a direct response to this, and no, I'm not a sock.

Per the idea the Roscelese didn't know because the talk page didn't bear a notice: the talk page has a header for Wikipeoject:Abortion, the word Abortion is mentioned twice in the 3 sentence lead and the contested material involved abortion. Do you honestly not think that she knew the article pertained to abortion? Padresfan94 (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Assuming you were one of the two IPs named in the report, there was no CU done, so your contention that you have been checked by a CU is not true.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry then, I though that that had happened. In any case, I'm still not a sockpuppet and Roscelese still violated 1RR twice in one afternoon after being warned repeatedly against doing so. Padresfan94 (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I've dug some more and have struck my comment. I can't disclose the details, but, again, assuming you were one of the IPs in the report, it is highly unlikely there was a technical connection between the IPs and User:Esoglou. As a consequence, Esoglou, who had been blocked for a week, was unblocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• To be honest, I don't really buy the "wasn't notified about 1RR" argument. However, I am very much swayed by the "God, dealing with socks who each revert you once with no consequences can get fucking old after a while" argument. I don't know this subject area well, so I don't know the particulars of the various sock masters, and I don't have any time to do research to get some kind of indisputable proof, so I won't stick my neck out to far and block them now. But I recommend that whatever admin decides to close this consider reminding/warning Roscelese about this, rather than blocking. Anyone mind if I issue Padresfan94 and the other editor (can't recall the name, they have all of like 5 edits) a warning, along the lines of "do not revert Roscelese again", under the General Sanctions? --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I object to this. If there is evidence to bring a sockpuppet investigation against anyone (and I've yet to see anything to convince me there is, but I haven't followed it closely enough to say for sure) then that investigation should be brought to the proper board. Absent that, giving anyone a warning to "not revert Roscelese again" seems inappropriate considering this user appears to have a history of edit warring on the topic area of abortion. I see no reason that Roscelese should be given free reign to revert (especially in violation of community sanctions) while others are warned they cannot revert her.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a sockpuppet. But even if you didn't like that the " "God, dealing with socks who each revert you once with no consequences can get fucking old after a while" argument" would only explain 1 of the 2 differednt 1RR violations that Roscelese made on the same page in 4 hours. After being warned repeatedly and having had been previously blocked for the same issue. Padresfan94 (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

User:50.51.38.150 reported by User:Tutelary (Result: 31 hours)

Page

Video game journalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC) ""Well established fact?" He was listed in the special thanks of Depression Quest! Contact was made, but the nature of the contact is in question (no claim can be made regarding it, positive or negative)."
2. 01:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Clarification is our friend."
3. 00:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "No, I've seen you "discuss." You're more interested with pushing bull**** then using whatever wiki law you can to excuse yourself than you are with making a good article. Really, who added the Salon citation?"
4. 00:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC) ""Nobody ever argued" Then why even note it?"
5. 00:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Holy crap, the mental gymnastics are just amazing. Thezoepost did not claim that a review happened. YOU need to cite the claim. Do you not know how the burden of proof works?"
6. 00:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC) ""Eron never made the claim" is too hard for you? Really, now you're just avoiding discussion. Is Salon even an acceptable source?"
7. 00:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633597093 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) The claim itself is unsourced. thezoepost doesn't make that claim."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Over 3RR */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Obviously over 3RR. Tutelary (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Love how I'm getting flak for this but the one that first did the 3RR-ing was North. 50.51.38.150 (talk) 01:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

An addendum to my original report. North and the IP appear to be reverting several more times now. The IP is giving policy names I'm not sure he knows and citing North's edits as 'vandalism'. (Hint hint, they're not, but they are over 3RR.) Tutelary (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked 31 hours for disruptive editing. NorthBySouthBaranof does not clean have clean hands and should have stopped, but blocking them would be punitive since there will be no more disruption. NorthBySouth, you have acted foolishly; don't do it again.

  Just to make the case clear: the IP's edits are atrocious. Tutelary, your diligence is greatly appreciated; I hope you are pleased that the disruption is now over. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:Tutelary (Result: Warned)

Page

Video game journalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "As per the reliable sources which have reported on this matter. Take it to the talk page."
2. 01:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Conflicts of interest and pressure from game publishers */ This is well-established and discussed in reliable sources."
3. 00:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 50.51.38.150 (talk) to last version by NorthBySouthBaranof"
4. 00:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Please discuss your issues on the talk page and stop writing an ungrammatical and nonsensical sentence."
5. 00:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Nobody ever argued that Gjoni wrote about Quinn or Depression Quest, so why are you writing a sentence which states that?"
6. 00:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "It doesn't make sense to say "Gjoni didn't review Depression Quest" because nobody's claimed that. If it needs to be clear that those accusations were by others, then write that."
7. 00:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Unsourced and the sentence doesn't make sense. Discuss your proposal on the talk page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Over 3RR */ new section"
2. 01:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Over 3RR */ sign"
3. 01:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Over 3RR */ c"
4. 01:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Over 3RR */ r"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is over 3RR on the article with what appears to be a good faithed IP. As a result, I am reporting them both. North has not claimed an exemption within edit summaries and neither has the IP. In the event that either of them do, I'll let an uninvolved admin review such claims. But both editors are edit warring over the page. Tutelary (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This is patently a bad-faith report by an ideological opponent. The IP has refused to engage in talk-page discussion despite multiple attempts and is inserting (a) completely ungrammatical, nonsensical sentences and (b) unsupported insinuations of unethical behavior by a living person that contradict the conclusions of all of the reliable sources. I claim both the vandalism and BLP exemptions in this case and I request that Tutelary be sanctioned for this bad-faith report, one of a continuing series of such unfounded reports made against their ideological opponents. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

An addendum to my original complaint. North and the IP appear to be reverting several more times now. North is rollbacking said edits without an edit summary. Tutelary (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I've merely reported two edit warriors and would merely like said edit warring to stop. Tutelary (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, right, sure Tutelary. You're just an innocent bystander who's never said anything about Gamergate and just magically happened to drag me to AN3. Come off it. The bad faith here is apparent. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I note that the user in question has been blocked for disruptive editing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yes. And you acted foolishly. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Drmies and I am content with this result for both the IP and North. Thanks again. Tutelary (talk) 01:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the opinion of Drmies, but can not help to note that the version of Northetc. is backed up by the given source] and the version of mr. IP. not. The Banner talk 01:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Banner, thanks Tutelary. I can't stress this enough: edit summaries are necessary, and in cases like these, when a 3RR exemption is claimed, that needs to be explicit. Even that doesn't mean exemptions are always granted, and I hope that NorthBySouthBaranof will be more careful next time. At the same time, I am well aware that editors of good faith who wish to stick to the rules have a harder time than others who don't (in this case an IP editor). Drmies (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Seanwal111111 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: )

Page: Al-Karaji (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Seanwal111111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor notified:[56]

Previous version reverted to: [57]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [58]
2. [59]
3. [60]
4. [61]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [62]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [63][64][65][66]

Comments:
Seanwal has been reverted by 3 different editors. His response to being reverted is, "Undid revision. You have to explain and justify your edit with respect to the MOS:BIO guidelines."

On November 5, I posted the following on Favonian's talk page:[67]

"I need some advice as to how to proceed. On the Al-Karaji article, user:Seanwal111111 has been removing Persian from the lead. He has been reverted by user:HistoryofIran and myself. I initiated the discussion on the talk page, in which Seanwal's reasoning is his interpretation of MOS guideline, "Ethnicity... should not generally be emphasized in the opening [paragraph] unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.".

My response was that if sources state the subject's ethnicity then we are required to mention it. Seanwal responded by stating, "I note that you haven't any concrete historical fact to offer bearing on his ethnicity; rather, you just assert a label.".[68]

I responded by posting numerous sources on Oct 15th.[69] After waiting until Oct 26th and receiving no response from Seanwal, I restored the reference and referenced information.[70]

Nine days later(Nov 5th) and without even making an effort on the talk page, Seanwal came back to remove the reference and referenced information, making the same blanket statement, "I invite Kansas Bear to try to explain why his edit should get an exception from the MOS:BIO guidelines.[71] It appears Seanwal does not have to participate on the talk page(he has not used it since Oct 14th[72]) and continues to use his interpretation of MOS guidelines to edit war."

As of today, November 12th, Seanwal has not posted on the talk page since October 14th, yet has reverted the article 4 times. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Gurjeshwar reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633315588 by Sitush (talk) Dear Sir,, Sardar Patel was gurjar, as already mentioned in Wikipedia Page of Mr. Vallabh Bhai Patel. Don't remove his picture. No copyright violation."
2. 10:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633503102 by Sitush (talk) Debate ::what you need? I already talked on talk page November 2014e. NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)"
3. 03:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633505306 by Sitush (talk)YOu have changed whole gurjar history content and their Icon like Samrat Mihir Bhoja & Sardar Patel images. We oppose your act. Being admin you can not do this."
4. 03:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633616998 by NeilN (talk) We means Wikipedia writer, Please do not remove images with references. Thanks"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Gurjar */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

3RR warning and discretionary sanctions notice given by Sitush earlier. Discussion on talk page NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

COMMENT, usual tag-teaming by non-Indian editors against a single Indian editor to insert dubious material. @NeilN, why did you reinsert that notorious Kurbanov myth / concoction originally from Ardir Banerji '62 ? If you see pg 58 of the source it clearly says the evidences of the Huna survival in Mewar are fourfold traditional, literary, epigraphic and numismatic. Balderdash and original research. This edit war needs an expert 3rd opinion between the 2 POV warriors. MonaPisser (talk) 14:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

If you want to discuss article content, do it on the article's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm here to discuss Edit Warring, not content. The content was to illustrate competence, or the lack thereof of intervenors. The edit history shows 2 disputants for the reverted article content, who have already discussed it on article talk and got nowhere, essentially because they are talking past each other, with atrocious edit summaries. This is a classic 3rd Opinion situation if either of them requests it, and "we" should encourage it. The article itself is sufficiently important in the Indian context for me to volunteer to assist them, if AGF prevails. The article talk was perfunctory ending with one editor saying So please do not undo till the answer from your side to counter my facts provided you. Seems to be a case of IDHT MonaPisser (talk) 15:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't accept you as a neutral WP:3O and I'm pretty sure Sitush wouldn't either. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I would want disclosure of any prior accounts, for sure. - Sitush (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Would you care to discuss Ghurye instead ? as I've already revealed my real world identity and other Wiki accounts (unlike you). MonaPisser (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – Gurjeshwar blocked 48 hours for 3RR violation, based on the four reverts listed above, which begin at 09:23 on 12 November. EdJohnston (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

User:71.7.239.21 reported by User:NeilN (Result: 31 hours)

Page

Wendy Davis (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Campaign for Governor of Texas */ added Washington Post eval, non copyrighted text."
2. 03:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633619831 by NeilN (talk)"
3. 03:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633620185 by NewEnglandYankee (talk) NeilN deleted NEW material, not otherwise repeated material as he claimed. He never read it."
4. 04:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633621173 by NeilN (talk)How can you get a consensus when you keep deleting it from the talk page NeilN?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Wendy Davis (politician). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 04:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Wendy Davis Lost */"

Comments:

Edit-warring to add poorly written material to a BLP NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Indeed. Blocked 31 hours--poorly written and a BLP violation too, as far as I'm concerned. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

User:SargentSignals reported by User:NG39 (Result: Page in question deleted, user warned)

Page

User:SargentSignals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "Fuck off..."
2. Consecutive edits made from 13:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC) to 13:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
   1. 13:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "Fucktards keeps trying to delete.."
   2. 13:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 01:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "Fucktard keeps deleting..."
4. 01:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "SargentSignals Super Soccer Schedule..."
5. 01:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "SargentSignals Super Soccer Schedule..."
6. 00:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "SargentSignals Super Soccer Schedule..."
7. 23:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC) "SargentSignals Super Soccer Schedule..."
8. Consecutive edits made from 17:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC) to 18:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
   1. 17:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC) "SargentSignals Super Soccer Schedule..."
   2. 18:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC) "SargentSignals Super Soccer Schedule..."
   3. 18:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC) "SargentSignals Super Soccer Schedule..."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on User:SargentSignals. (Twinkle)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 08:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on User:SargentSignals. (Twinkle)"

Comments:

User Keeps removing MfD template from his userspace. Uses "fucktard"in his edit summaries. NG39 (Used to be NickGibson3900)^Talk 04:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Userpage deleted: Wikipedia isn't a webhost. Will address behavioral issues with the user. Acroterion (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I have the user page on my watchlist now and if the editor returns and restores or adds similar material, where should I report the activities? Please instruct on my talk page as I am not watching here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

User:RGloucester reported by User:LlywelynII (Result: )

Page: Wikipedia:Argentine, not Argentinian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RGloucester (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. "Contributions" beginning 03:54, 13 November 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Here.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Wikipedia talk:Argentine, not Argentinian

Comments:
Eh, this one is messier than usual because the 3rr violation wasn't editing of a single page but repeated movement and blanking of content. The original content at Wikipedia:Argentine, not Argentinian was an essay by RGloucester that (mho) ignored the relevant policy (common English practice) to focus on Spanish usage and POVy complaints about "proper" usage based on a (mistaken) history of the words' usage. I corrected the mistakes, removed the POV commentary, and included some additional and better sources. Those were almost instantly reverted.

Not really wanting to fight such a clingy page owner, I just moved the page to his user space where personal essays of one person's support belong. He couldn't move the page back and led it on a bizarre path around Wikipedia before sending it to my user space. That was fine and I just left it for speedy deletion.

The original namespace now being vacant, I restored the improved essay, which RGloucester has repeatedly moved or deleted without discussion, occasionally making specious edit commentaries that I am in copyright violation of myself, having pasted back the material from my original edit. He seems like a common appearance here and would appreciate the guy having the procedure explained to him again by people he will listen to.

Resolution of the placement of the original POVy content or my improvement of it would be nice as a sideline (He seems to accept leaving his in his user's section here but I'm not sure how genuine that is given his conduct today or as evidenced by his talk page and sarcastic reply there), but this might be the wrong forum for that. — LlywelynII 04:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Ha, ha, ha! As I said, I'm fine with leaving my version of the essay in the user space, if his version stays in the user space. His is a skewing of the sources, and quite frankly, a total commentary. If mine is somehow no good for the Wikipedia space, then certainly neither is his. Yes, he committed a copyright violation by doing a cut-and-paste move. Nothing about the essay I wrote "ignored" policy, it just explained what the Spanish usage was, and what the etymology of the damn thing is. Never mind that, though. This is a total kibosh. RGloucester — ☎ 04:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This is obviously the wrong forum for this, but you can explain your concerns about my "skewing" and "commentary" on article's talk page. I can't see it at all, but perhaps I missed something. In any case, use of my own words is not a copyright violation as bad as cut-and-paste moves are for other reasons. — LlywelynII 04:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It is a copyright violation because there is no attribution. By the way, as far as my behaviour is concerned, I do believe I left a comment on the essay's talk page in reply. Instead of granting a reply, Mr Llywelyn, presumably of fair Wales, started moving the page and messing with redirects. None of this would've started if he had simply talked it out first. However, was I meant to sit idly by whilst the essay I wrote was usurped because of apparent "PoV" problems, and then see him put his own heavily skewed version in? How on earth could I do that? It was an attack on my character, and so I defended myself. It was not an elegant affair, and I can't say I'm proud of myself for it. However, sometimes, one must do what one must. I believe the stout leek is quite aware of this, given his usual countenance to serve in winter's grasp. RGloucester — ☎ 04:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

By the way, for anyone looking for the original essay and its edit history, it now resides here. RGloucester — ☎ 05:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I have moved the page back to the original location, where it has been for the last 2 years, and opened a move request. That's what should had been done from the begining, a move request. Explain the reasons for moving or keeping it there, and if you want to move then where to move. Cambalachero (talk) 13:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Left a note for User:Jimfbleak who is an admin since he had redirected the article to Name of Argentina. Unless he responds here with an objection, I think this 3RR should be closed with a recommendation to let the move discussion run its course at Wikipedia talk:Argentine, not Argentinian#Requested move. Nobody should do any further moves or redirections until consensus is reached. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

121.73.130.151 reported by VictoriaGrayson (Result: Anon blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Diffs of the user's reverts

• diff1
• diff2
• diff3
• diff4
• diff5

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• Warning diff

Comments:

This IP address is edit warring with Drmies and me.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 06:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 6 months via Anon-block Dreadstar ☥ 06:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
• Thank you Dreadstar. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:UniGuard (Result: )

Page

List of awards and nominations received by Mohanlal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

TheRedPenOfDoom (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 19:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC) to 19:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
   1. 19:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Asianet Film Awards */ unsourced"
   2. 19:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Asiavison Tv Awards (Dubai) */ unsourced"
   3. 19:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* AsiaVision Amma Malayalam Movie Awards (Dubai) */ unsoruced"
   4. 19:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* CNN-IBN */ unsoruced"
   5. 19:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Kerala State Film Awards */ unsourced"
   6. 19:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Indian Medical Association */ unsourced"
   7. 19:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* National Film Awards */ unsourced"
   8. 19:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* South Indian International Movie Awards */ unsourced"
   9. 19:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Mathrubhumi Film Awards */ unsourced"
   10. 19:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Kerala Film Critics Awards */ unsourced"
   11. 19:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Jaihind TV Film Awards */ unsourced"
   12. 19:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Kerala Film Audience Council Awards */ unsourced"
   13. 19:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Filmfare Awards South */ unsourced"
   14. 19:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Amrita TV Film Awards */ rem unsourced"
   15. 19:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Other awards and recognitions */ unsourced / non reliably sourced"
   16. 19:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Other awards and recognitions */ format"
   17. 19:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Vanitha Film Awards */ unsourced"
   18. 19:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Star Screen Awards */ unsourced"
   19. 19:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Titles and Honours */ unsoruced"
   20. 19:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* International Indian Film Academy Awards */ unsoruced"
   21. 19:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "unneeded hatnote"
   22. 19:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "poorly sourced and written"
   23. 19:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "gramm"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Heavy vandalism, damaging wikipedia articles. UniGuard (talk) 10:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Note this is not edit warning, bring it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents instead, these look like legitimate edits Avono (talk) 10:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Kwm1975 reported by User:BranStark (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Wallace Fard Muhammad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Kwm1975 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 14:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Same as last edit."
3. 14:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Replaced intentionally false and misleading post that has been repeatedly re-posted."
4. 13:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 13:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC) to 13:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
   1. 13:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 13:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC) ""
   3. 13:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek reported by User:Kenfree (Result: )

Page: RT (TV network) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [73]
2. [74]
3. [75]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [76] [77]

Also, this issue is under discussion on the NPOV noticeboard, where Marek's disruptive behavior has also been discussed

Comments: Volunteer Marek has shown himself an incorrigible edit warrior, who will not tolerate edits to the lede that fail to maintain the negative tone he desires. Dozens of examples could be adduced, but this is my first formal report. Marek has clearly reverted Sidelight 12's good faith edit three times in less than 24 hours, without reasonable cause. Please review the editorial history of this page and earlier examples of intolerance of editorial revision by those not sharing this user's POV will be evident. --> Kenfree (talk) 16:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Here are all edits by Kenfree in article space. During the entire year of 2014, he did only one thing: reverts in the article he now complains about. This is clearly a case of WP:Not here. My very best wishes (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This report by user:My very best wishes is false on both accounts (see my editing history) and irrelevant on all accounts, as is the fact that user:My very best wishes has not contributed anything constructive in the whole of my experience in this conflict.Kenfree (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by VM

There is no 3RR violation here. Yes, I reverted Kenfree. That is because this is an issue which has been discussed TO DEATH. On the article talk page [78], [79], [80], [81], on WP:NPOVN [82] and several other venues which I can't be bothered to look for right now. User:Kenfree, along with a tag-team buddy User:Spotter 1, who was recently blocked for a week for edit warring on this very article [83] has been engaged in a long running edit war against multiple users for close to two months. By "multiple users" I mean about half a dozen, including one administrator, User:Ymblanter. And of course, these two are just the latest in a long list of single purpose accounts, most of which have shown up on this article to push POV, get banned, and then come back with new usernames. Needless to say, this is edit warring by Kenfree against consensus, involving repeated attempts to remove well sourced information from the article. This consensus has been strongly established in the above mentioned discussions. Kenfree is simply engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and reverting away.

In addition to today, Kenfree tried to impose his views on the article via edit warring on November 1st [84] [85] (note that this is him edit warring with OTHER editors, not me), October 27th [86] (again not me), October 25th [87], [88], October 21st [89] [90], [91], [92] (that one was a 3RR violation which went unreported, AFAIK), October 17 [93], [94], October 13 [95], October 9 [96], [97], [98], [99], [100] (another unreported 3RR violation).

I should also add that constructive discussion with this user is impossible. They have repeatedly claimed that the five sources provided for the text under dispute don't support the text. In response, detailed explanations and direct quotes showing that they DO in fact support the text have been repeatedly provided. This was done on the talk page and at the noticeboard discussion linked above. In response Kenfree ignored these explanations, only to repeat their false claim again in some other venue. It's a classic case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The typical conversation goes something like this:

Kenfree: "The five sources provided don't support the text"

Other user: "Yes they do, please read them, here are the links"

Kenfree: "No they don't"

Other user: "Yes they do, here's a quote from all five sources which shows that they directly support the text"

Kenfree: "No they don't"

Other user: "What do you mean they don't? I just gave you exact quotes. Here's some more..."

Kenfree: "No they don't"

Other user: "? Can you explain how?"

Kenfree: "No they don't"

Other user: "I just explained that they do, how, and provided quotes"

Kenfree: "No you didn't"

Etc.

That's basically the level of discussion here. Volunteer Marek  17:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The above referenced discourse is also both falsely reported (note that it is not referenced) and irrelevant to Volunteer Marek's violation, which was not, as he reports, initially a revert of me, but of Sidelight 12, whose constructive edit, reflecting the current discussion on the NPOV noticeboard, Marek personally opposes, but is manifestly incapable of rationally critiquing there or elsewhere. So he edit wars. Anyone with questions about my capacity for constructive discussion, as compared to Marek's, is referred to the NPOV noticeboard discussion on this topic, rather than his highly fabricated wall of text. Kenfree (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Ymblanter There is a clear consensus at the talk page that the current version is appropriate. Kenfree refuses to accept this consensus and is therefore forum-shopping and edit-warring. I suggest that they get blocked for disruptive editing instead.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Lamcy0803 reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: )

Page

Miss World 2014 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Lamcy0803 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633691493 by Davey2010 (talk)"
2. 17:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633689931 by Jaam0121 (talk)"
3. 17:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633689931 by Jaam0121 (talk)"
4. 17:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633688214 by Jaam0121 (talk)"
5. 16:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633680910 by Jaam0121 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Miss World 2014. (TW)"
2. 17:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Miss World 2014. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

Lamcy0803 seems to prefer edit warring over communicating, I had hoped both these [101] [102] edit summaries would've been enough but clearly not, Jam0121 even attempted to discuss [103] but to no avail, Cheers, –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)