Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive198

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Hyperionsteel reported by User:Roscelese (Result: Restriction agreed to)[edit]

Further discussion here is unlikely to help. Take this to some other venue if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 02:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
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: Canadian Human Rights Commission free speech controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hyperionsteel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [1] (although thankfully I have been able to secure the removal of BLP violations cited to a lobbying organization)

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

In these reverts, Hyperionsteel repeatedly restores BLP violations including but not limited to a controversial and unverifiable quote from an individual that's subsequently used as a hook for two long paragraphs of criticism of the individual, false or exaggerated statements of supposed fact about a living person's character and employment history, and descriptions of various individuals as lacking basic general knowledge of understanding of free speech.

Edit-warring also took place earlier; same general business. I'd begun by removing a large amount of poorly sourced material, citing BLP as one of several reasons, but after being reverted I continued removing only the BLP violations, rather than the other poorly sourced but less urgent material.

(While there are 4 reverts in just over 24 hours, which some would view as an attempt to game 3RR, that isn't even my point and I didn't realize it was the case until I was compiling the report; the problem is the edit-warring to restore BLP violations. I've removed them and explained why they cannot be included, but that hasn't stopped this user. I obviously am at 4RR but I've stated very clearly in each revert that I am removing BLP violations, which I enumerate in the edit summaries and which take priority over that bright-line.)

User also edit-warred to insert content describing a BLP subject as a "race-obsessed paranoiac" before "compromising" and removing that line, while retaining other false or exaggerated claims about the subject (which he's continuing to edit-war into the article linked above; see the bottom of the diffs).

And this has just come to my notice at Antisemitism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

Originally just an RS problem, but one of the other users reverting Hyperionsteel pointed out that the edit was apparently plagiarism as well, which did not faze him at all.


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11] (and earlier)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Canadian_Human_Rights_Commission_free_speech_controversy#Removal_of_poor_sources (The discussion is generally over Hyperionsteel's insistence on the use of op-eds from unreliable papers; the bottom of the discussion concerns the BLP material specifically, which is also at WP:BLPN.)

Comments:
Already elaborated above, I think. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 06:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The additions to Antisemitism were blatant copy-pasted plagiarism. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
First of all, I admit I may have reverted this file more than 3 times within a 24-hour period (even though User:Roscelese acknowledges that I technically haven't) but only because User:Roscelese repeatedly removed huge portions of properly cited material from these article without any discussion on the article's talk page and her refusal to accept that mainstream newspapers are acceptable sources under Wikipedia guidelines. I find it ironic that User:Roscelese accuses me of edit warring, as she has engaged in this behaviour to repeatedly and unjustifiably remove material from properly cited sources. I acknowledge that I did engage in numerous reverts of these files but I acted in good faith and did so only because properly sourced material was being repeated removed by User:Roscelese without any discussion or resolution on the talk pages. I am prepared to face any consequences that may come of this, but I ask that User:Roscelese also face similar discipline.
Second, how am I guilty of plagiarism? I've clearly cited and acknowledged the sources (which are RS) and provided proper citations, and I'm certainly not claiming that its my own work. I have asked Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 to clarify, but he has declined to do so. If this is simply about the wording of the material added, this can be easily addressed.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 07:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC))
One more note, I asked Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 to discuss his allegations of Plagiarism with me. The only response I received from him on my talk page that either I am "playing stupid" or that I shouldn't be editing Wikipedia (i.e. that I am stupid). I would appreciate it if Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 would actually make arguments of substance instead of resorting to condesending and insulting remarks.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 11:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC))
I'll gladly fill in here. For example, every single paragraph most paragraphs in this diff uses the exact wording of a national post editorial without clear attribution. a13ean (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Based on some further investigation, I have submitted this to WP:CCI. a13ean (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I have acknowledged that I should have taken more care when incorporating this material into Wikipedia. However, I did provide proper sources and citations. I also attempted to reinsert a paragraph which gave better attribution to the author and source and consisted of reworked language, but this was also removed, again with explanation or discussion. In any event, the issue here is not allegations of plagiarism but whether or not my reverts were justified. I believed they were justified because Roscelese was removing huge portions of several articles (without discussion) solely because of her newfound hatred for the National Post (based on one incorrect article, a few derogatory comments on RSN, and her own invective). I pointed out repeatedly that a mainstream newspaper such as the Post is considered reliable by Wikipedia standards, despite the fact that it has a conservative outlook.

I will begin rewording and reorganizing the material I entered in the Antisemitism article (and I admit, I should have done this the first time) but let's focus on the real issue here - Were Roseclese's mass removals of properly sourced material without discussion justified, and if so, were my efforts to revert this justify disciplinary action against myself. One more thing - Roseclese directly accuses me of inserting false information into these articles. This I will challenge her on - please cite one example of false information that I entered. Anyway, as a temporary compromise, I will agree to leave the BLP material in question off the pages while the debate about the RS is ongoing.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC))

Very well - as per EdJohnston suggestion on my talk page, I will agree not to edit either of these articles for on month. I will only suggest that users not remove large portions of properly cited material in these articles without discussing it on the talk page first.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC))
BLP violations are always removed immediately, without discussion. You wrote that a commissioner "has" no clear understanding of free speech, but the source said the commissioner "demonstrated" no clear understanding of free speech. You also wrote that the National Post "stated", but in fact they opined. The op-ed piece you cited was an attack piece aimed at the commissioner, but you made it more of an attack by couching it as hard fact rather than opinion gained by observation. You also violated WP:NPOV by using an attack tone, and WP:UNDUE by emphasizing too much the attack piece. Binksternet (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I though this was finished but since Binksternet is making new allegations against me, I feel the need to respond. With regarding to his claim the I was "emphasizing too much the attack piece" clearly he didn't read the rest of the article. I included entire section on people who support the CHRC and even statments from the commissioner herself. True, I didn't include this in the criticism section, because the criticism section is for --- Criticism! With regards to the NPOV claim, I can understand how the tone is too harsh, and I would be willing to accept alternatives. You also accuse me of misquoting the Post - This is what the Post originally wrote: "...when calling for the review, chief commissioner Jennifer Lynch demonstrated no clear understanding of free speech or the value of protecting it." When I incorporated this information into the article, I wrote: "The Post stated that Chief commissioner Jennifer Lynch has "no clear understanding of free speech or the value of protecting it". Also, I explicitly noted at the start of this section that the Post editorial board was the author(s) of the article - "In June 2008, the National Post published an editorial which harshly criticized Canada's Human Rights Commissions (HRCs)." I assumed I had made it clear that this section was sourced from an editorial and was to taken as such - i.e. it is the opinion of the Post's editorial board. I also assumed that such a statement/opinion written in an editorial would not be considered as a "hard fact" - I certainly was not "couching it" as you have alleged - It is clear in both versions that this is the opinion of the editorial board and not a "hard fact" - even if I did use the word "stated" as opposed to "opined". You seem to be implying that because I wrote that the Post "stated" something as opposed to "opined" something that it must automatically (or implicitly) be treated as a "hard fact." This is simply not true.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC))
Thanks to Hyperionsteel for his agreement to not edit the two articles for a month. It seems to me that this should allow the 3RR report to be closed without sanctions against Hyperionsteel. I have not yet been convinced that Roscelese's reverts are covered by the BLP defence. I don't see a consensus anywhere that blanket exclusion of material from the National Post is justified, or that removal of Post opinions by itself is exempt from 3RR when the Post expresses a negative opinion about individuals. Misquotation of the Post by Hyperionsteel is obviously another matter. EdJohnston (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm concerned that such a result will not solve the problem; if Hyperionsteel is allowed to think that the problem is with the articles rather than with his own behavior, the behavior will continue at other articles during that month and possibly return after the month's end. He needs to understand that edit-warring in order to restore copyrighted material or controversial and unverified material about living people is not acceptable. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 01:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Additional comment - Rather than making a new post, I think I'll just include it here since it's the same article, but it's come to my attention that possibly another editor, Seb az86556, edit-warred with Hyperionsteel as well, violating 3RR, based on what Ed wrote above (if I'm reading it correctly. Seb said he was reverting a copyvio, not sure if this is covered in 3RR, but if I'm reading the above correctly, I don't think this revert counts in this case). I will notify them about this. If I'm wrong, then I'm sorry for the trouble:

--Jethro B 00:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

reverting copyvios is indeed exempt. (and by the way, the diffs you give aren't even all reverts) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually, they are all reverts - either a direct use of the button or removing passages in Malaysia in a back-and-forth dispute that could've been just as easily solved through the talk page. Per WP:3RR, "Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." That's exactly what is here.
Secondly, I brought this up because it isn't so clear that they were indeed copyvios and that this back-and-forthness was legitimate in that extent. --Jethro B 01:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
of course they were copyvios. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Result: Restriction agreed to by Hyperionsteel. He will not edit Canadian Human Rights Commission free speech controversy or Antisemitism for one month. I'm closing with no further action because there are so many copyvios, it is not even worth checking out whether reverts are covered by BLP. Hyperionsteel is warned not to violate copyright in the future. He should pay attention to the new entry at WP:CCI about his edits and see if he can fix the problems listed. Roscelese seems to misunderstand the BLP exception to 3RR, since WP:3RRNO only exempts extreme cases. If someone wants to include editorial opinion from a national Canadian newspaper, those opinions are hardly unsourced defamation. The wisdom of including these opinions should be decided by the consensus of editors, not by a single individual. If Roscelese wants to remove all editorial opinions of the National Post from all Wikipedia articles, she should open an RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 01:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I've explained in response to your comment on my talk page that op-eds simply are not reliable for statements of fact, especially about living people and especially when reliable sources contradict them. Please don't fall prey to Hyperionsteel's misrepresentation of the dispute he was edit-warring over. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 01:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • This sounds like an argument you should be making at WP:BLP/N or WP:RS/N, where broader issues are considered. Repeatedly reverting material you disagree with is risky. EdJohnston (talk) 02:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • It's already at BLPN, where there's no consensus to override the normal BLP and RS policies of not using op-eds for statements of fact and not including unverifiable and controversial material about living individuals. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 02:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually, this started because of Roscelese's newfound hatred of the National Post and her attempts to remove huge portions of articles (not just BLP issues) on her own initiative without any discussion, except for her own invective in the edit comments. I tried to explain to her that mainstream newspaper such as the Post are considered RS by wiki standards, despite the fact that the post has an ideological outlook which she despises. Instead she repeatedly launched into tirades about how the Post "makes stuff up" and is hostile to Muslims/minorities based on a single article published by the Post (as well as other media outlets) which later turned out to be based on false information) and a few derogatory (but unsupported) comments about the Post on RSN. I took the action I did because Roceslese appeared unable to accept that she cannot aribitrarily remove huge portions of articles simply because she hates the Post because of its political outlook (her unfounded allegations and conclusions about the Post have been discussed at length in the talk pages). If anyone is falling prey to something, it is Roceslese's rather arrogant belief that she and she alone can declare the Post an unreliable source for Wikipedia).
I also reminded her that wiki guidelines allow the use of op-eds and columnists as RS if they are from mainstream media outlets.
As for Roseclese new accusations, I realize now that some of the edits I have made over the last five years may indeed have violated wiki copyright rules (although it has never been brought to my attention until now). I will make every effort to avoid this in the future and to correct any and all mistakes I have made in the past. Even so, I will continue to add material from reliable sources (while ensuring that these additions are sufficiently paraphrased to comply with wiki standards). I will also bring to attention any attempts by users such as Roscelese who believe they can arbitrarily decide that a mainstream newspaper (one of the largest in Canada) is unreliable simply because they don't approve of their political stance.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC))
Your comments indicate that you have absolutely no conception of why your behavior at the CHRC article (inserting unverifiable and controversial, or verifiably false, material about living people) was wrong. It is very likely that this behavior will continue, and a voluntary restriction is clearly not sufficient. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 22:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I have challenged you twice to provide an example of false information that I added to the CHRC article (you have yet to do so). Second, I certainly don't deny that the information was controversial. Third, as I have pointed out to you several times, all of the information I added came from mainstream media sources or from columnists who write for these papers, which are considered RS under Wikipedia guidelines. Finally, you are free to observe all my future edits (as I am sure you will) and point out any transgressions. You are also free to recommend harsher penalties against me (as I am sure you will). However, any sins I am guilty of doesn't change the fact that you arbitrarily removed huge portions of several articles based solely on your own determination that the Post is not a reliable source for Wikipedia (despite wiki guidelines to the contrary), which is how this got started in the first place (you also strongly implied that I used a sockpuppet, which is blatantly false, but we'll leave that aside for the time being). I accept that I have made serious errors and will attempt to correct them, but I will ask you (again) to stop making false accusations against me. Considering your own behavior, you are not really in a place to judge me. As this issue (edit warring) has been settled, I suggest that you stop using this page to attack me and that we move on.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC))
On the contrary, I've pointed out that the Steacy quote is unverifiable and that the Chopra information is verifiably false. I've also pointed out several times that we cannot use op-eds for statements of fact and that the BLP guidelines are even stricter than our normal sourcing guidelines, and you have flat-out ignored me for no reason other than that you apparently like reading Jonathan Kay's opinion columns over your breakfast cereal. If you continue to violate Wikipedia policy, you will be reported again. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 23:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Sigh. You are still claiming that the Steacy quote is unverifiable - as I have pointed out, Mr. Steacy was quoted by three different columnists (Jonathan Kay, John Ivision, and Robert Fulford) that have been published in the National Post, the Ottawa Citizen, and the Edmonton Journal (Jonathan Kay has cited this quote in two articles, one in 2008 and again in 2012). I also pointed out that Senator Doug Findlay criticized Steacy in the Canadian Senate. Now, I believed (perhaps wrongly) that all of these sources combined are sufficient evidence to sufficiently verify this quote for Wikipedia. You are free to disagree with me on this, but don't state that the quote is unverifiable. Second, what information about Chopra was "verifiably false"? - true Jonathan Kay described in him in extremely unflattering terms, although it is true that Kay cited only one employee who held a certain view about Chopra instead of several (I acknowledge this error). It certainly does not place Mr. Chopra is a positive light, but it was clear that this was the opinion of the columnist and not a fact (i.e. "Kay described Chopra as ....).
Second, How am not ignoring you? I have responded to all of your rigmarole here and on the talk pages - I clearly do not agree with you on a number of issues, and I will continue to debate them with you as long as you wish, but I am certainly not ignoring you.
Third, you are absolutely correct: If I (just like every other Wikipedia editor) violate Wikipedia policy, then it should be reported.
Fourth, I was ask you again to stop using this page as your soapbox. The 3RR issue has been settled. It's time to move on.
Finally, your last comment about me was both wrong and offensive - I eat fruit for breakfast, not cereal.

(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC))

This back-and-forth argument to see who gets the last word in is futile and will likely not result in anything. Save your breath guys, save your time, there's no point in this chatter. At the heart of this is a content dispute that is best for talk pages, not for the AN3 noticeboard where a decision was already handed down. Make peace, shake hands, and sing Kumbaya around a campfire. But draw the line, and don't necessarily drag the conversation on when it has ended. It won't benefit anyone, and won't lead to anything. --Jethro B 01:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


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

User: 221.160.109.38 reported by User:Feline1 (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Mellotron (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 221.160.109.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21] [22] [23]

I suggest using semi-protection for this article, as the editor in question (who does not log in with a wikipedia account) has been editing the article in this fashion for over half a decade, and shows no regard for WP:COI, WP:VER, WP:OR etc.feline1 (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. I've warned the IP that any further attempts to re-add the same material will result in a block. At the same time, Feline, you should be handling this problem differently. The crux of the problem is that the IP has been adding unsourced/unreliably sourced/unencyclopedic material but hasn't been formally warned of that. I note the discussion on the talk page, a good thing, but you have to keep your comments in check and focus only on the content issues, not any perceived conduct issues. Bickering, calling each other vandals, etc., is unconstructive. Also, for the future, diffs are listed here from earliest to latest, not the reverse. Also, the IP made 3 reverts not 4. Two of your diffs are part of the same edit sequence, which counts as only one revert.Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. :) feline1 (talk) 08:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

User:H. 217.83 reported by Thefirewillrise (talk) (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

Page: Nifelheim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: H. 217.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 19:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

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

  1. 13:29, 7 October 2012 (edit summary: "No, you misunderstood me; by “my new edits” I meant e. g. the musical style section, which was not a part of any version before mine. But I announced “now that Williamsburgland is gone”, that part is correct.")
  2. 11:20, 9 October 2012 (edit summary: "Still no need to undo the whole edit including the parts that don’t really have to do with the edit war (the section on the musical style; the comparisons with other bands weren’t referenced before my edit).")
  3. 15:48, 9 October 2012 (edit summary: "Still no need to undo the whole edit; you could have corrected it yourself and left the message in the summary.")
  4. 17:00, 9 October 2012 (edit summary: "Stop it, this is extremely stupid. You are creating needless versions by undoing the whole thing.")
  5. 19:01, 9 October 2012 (edit summary: "Maybe I did not see one or two plural versions but at least I changed those I saw. Look at my different versions and you will see. No need for the sentence in the introduction since there is the section below. The Dissection members were no full members.")
  6. 19:02, 9 October 2012 (edit summary: "/* Controversy */")
  7. 19:31, 9 October 2012 (edit summary: "I own both the Slayer fanzine and the book with the interview’s reprint, so I know that is a quote. In your version, one of the footnotes is broken, but I guess you just didn’t see. I know the interview, maybe you should read the biography.")
  8. 19:32, 9 October 2012 (edit summary: "How did that happen?")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Cautioned user several times on page (see below) and in summaries.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24]

Involves myself, this editor and one or more IP/anon editors (?).

Thank you for your time. --Thefirewillrise (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. I'm not seeing a clear warning of edit-warring, although the user, having been blocked before for edit-warring on the same article, should know better. You also neglected to notify the user of this discussion; I've done so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I know about edit wars. But it is obvious that my edits are not 100 % equal (you know how to compare versions), see my summaries which both users seem to ignore. And I don’t consider it acceptable to undo constructive edits completely because you believe one part of them to be erroneous or something like that, like both of them did; and yet the third user involved, Swankytank (unless this is a sock puppet of Thefirewillrise or vice versa; both started here almost at the same time and focussed on the Nifelheim article, though that may be coincidence), dares to call me a troll and tell me about manners. --217/83 05:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
That's a fair concern BB, but I'm aware of the user's history (I've edited in the past anonymously, just like the IP user above) and I had expressed my concerns here and the response I received has been less than friendly. That said, I should have notified the user; this is my first involvement in one of these and while I thought I was supposed to post a notification I didn't see the template above. Now, onto the concerns above, the user should know well that edit warring is more than three reverts on an article, and it includes any reverts. The user above has reverted edits done by every user on the article going back to his first bout of edit warring and doesn't seem to care about anyone else's inputs. He is now resorting to accusing me of sockpuppetry, which I think is ridiculous. I created this user name around two months ago, and while it seems that I've forgotten to sign in (again, I'm fairly new to certain aspects of wikipedia and I almost always use work/shared computers and cannot stay signed it) until recently I have been editing the Nifelheim article for as long as the Pantera thing has been an issue. I assumed the other user is this IP, and it seems his first edits are on this article, but I thought that my edits had gone back further than what's on my edit history (I'm fairly certain I signed in and edited in August), so I don't know if there's a way to hide older edits. I'd like to work with both users on this but I think the above user's behavior is ridiculous. --Thefirewillrise (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd also like to bring this to your attention. I don't know if it counts as forum shopping, but it seems unfair to me, particularly because at the very least the user is inferring I am a sock puppet again. He has also reverted my changes once again, this time to a version with grammatical errors. I'm really doing my best here. --Thefirewillrise (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. H. seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:3RR and a history of edit-warring on the article, even between this block and his previous block in April. As for his sockpuppet accusations, the only comment I have is that the two editors' styles and points of view do not seem similar or aligned, although there's no doubt that the two are interested in the same articles, or in the case of Swankytank, just this article (except for one revert of vandalism on a completely unrelated article - Swankytank has only made 5 edits since registration).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
H. posted a long message on their talk page and asked me to post it here. I'm uncomfortable doing that, but anyone who wants to can read it here.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for that notice and the note on my talk page. I'm hoping we're going to be able to work more peacefully when his block is up.--Thefirewillrise (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Steelpillow reported by User:ScienceApe (Result: Declined)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [25]


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31]

Comments:


User repeatedly tried to reinsert uncited material. After my first attempt to remove the uncited material, I tried to discuss the change on the talk page. Discussion was fruitless, no attempt was made by SteelPillow to find verifiable 3rd party sources to back up the material he wanted to keep in the article. Instead he proposed that I should come up with a better blurb. I pointed out that I wasn't the inclusionist, and if he wanted to keep the blurb, the burden of proof was on him to back up his claims with citations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BURDEN#When_a_reliable_source_is_required

He ignored that, so I removed the uncited blurb again, and then edit warring ensued. Dawnseeker then removed the uncited material again only for those edits to be reverted by The Bushranger. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aircraft&diff=516879154&oldid=516869559 ScienceApe (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) There appears to be no violation of WP:3RR - all the reverts were in a period well over 48 hours, and the editors would be better following The Bushrangler's advice. Mdann52 (talk) 12:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined. It's true that there was no breach of 3RR by Steelpillow (3 reverts in 24 hours), but they certainly were edit-warring, along with ScienceApe, who only made 2 reverts, but they got help from Dawnseeker. Bushranger's point about WP:BRD is valid, but the content issues go deeper than that. The article has been tagged as lacking sources for well over 3 years. It's true that ScienceApe removed unsourced material from the article, which generally can be done (Steelpillow's analogy to the sky being blue is pretty weak), but the whole article is poorly referenced and poorly structured vis-a-vis the body and the lead. A good article would have a well-referenced body (this one doesn't) and a lead that summarizes the body (this one doesn't), and no references in the lead because everything in the lead is referenced in the body. The lead doesn't even come close to what a proper lead should be. It's too short, it has information that is not in the body, and obviously it doesn't highlight much of the body. In any event, the parties need to work out the small contretemps as best they can on the talk page and through dispute resolution if needed, but someone ought to tackle the larger - and more important - issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

User:DawgDeputy reported by User:68.55.123.86 (Result: )[edit]

Page: Couch Potatoes (game show) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DawgDeputy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [32]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]

Comments:
This user has an incredible history of edit warring and WP:OWN. Viewing the last 2500 edits by DawgDeputy, 1473 are reversions (almost 59%). The user provides a standard edit summary for most of these revisions consisting of either "unneeded", "unnecessary" or "unsourced". User has been blocked three times previously for edit warring and twice for sock puppetry. How long will this behavior be tolerated? 68.55.123.86 (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Reiniger321 reported by User:Lguipontes (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page: Reconquista (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Machismo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Turrón (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Reiniger321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [continuous past edit-war], [515494400], [511441173]

  • 1st revert: Special:Contributions/Reiniger321. One can see at it continuous edit war behavior with the IP (used by me during late morning, afternoon and early night in a discloseted way) he reverts in the various problematic changes he does against consensus, it would be too long to list everything.


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

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

Comments:

He was already blocked for edit-warring early on and continues his problematic behaviour without seeing consensus, and continues to stalk my contributions looking for things he can change to his POV. Lguipontes (talk) 02:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

  • If I'm reading this correctly, this is a content dispute over which particular varieties of Portuguese to use for the phonetic spelling at the top of this article, and also a whole host of other articles. I think the best place for this is the dispute resolution noticeboard, but if one of the two doesn't agree to go through dispute resolution, then we might need to think about blocks or topic bans. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
    After having a closer look at this, I think that Reinigers321's accusations of sockpuppetry are not without merit, and I've started an investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lguipontes. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The dispute resolution? Well, his reasons to revert my edits aren't covered by any kind of particular policy of the Linguistics project, as he claims, just like Aeusoes1 said in my talk page. I've been making it for months, and no one has ever reverted me over these silly disputes other than him, which is concerned only with reverting and accusing a fellow editor of vandalism and sockpuppetry. Sincerely, I think he has no merit to try to defend his point it if he demonstrates such enormous level of bad faith, is the only one at this dispute, has no good IPA skills as demonstrated by his frequent confusion of an alveolar tap as in Spanish pero with a trill as in Spanish perro (and the last one with the fricative as in French riviere, the 'rr' phoneme of Portuguese) and never, EVER tried to achieve consensus by discussion. Lguipontes (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I am still waiting for a result. Lguipontes (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale. I'm not sure that your removing this from archives and putting it back at the top of the main page is permissible just because you didn't get a "result", but there have been no edits to the article since October 4, and there have been no edits of any kind by Reiniger since October 4.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, if it is not said clearly somewhere in the archive or here that we aren't supposed to do this, I fail in the criteria of inappropriate behavior per ignorance. What kind of behavior is appropriate if he is back at reverting me again? Because it is a single-purpose account stalking me over, and I'm tired of him doing this. Lguipontes (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I would say that unarchiving a discussion at an administrative noticeboard when you are not an admin is generally inadvisable, even without a rule. As for your question, if he edit-wars in the future, file a new report here (and link back to this one if you like).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
If it is not archived again, I suppose. Lguipontes (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
No, you can link to the archive, assuming editors don't tinker with the archives (smile).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Just saying, a Brazilian IP (what coincidence!) undid two edits of mine on completely independent topics, and I answered it in a quite passionate way. Lguipontes (talk) 08:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

PEOPLE OF WIKIPEDIA, IT'S WEDNESDAY DEEP INTO OCTOBER and he's doing it again. ¬___¬ Lguipontes (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. Please don't use all caps. It appears that he's warring (although not breaching 3RR) over a number of articles about WP:IPA and diacritics, the policies or guidelines for which I know very little. I know there've been discussions, which I have not followed, about diacritics at administrative noticeboards, so I suggest you take this issue to WP:ANI. If another admin better versed in this than I can make some sort of determination here, fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned There was more edit warring yesterday, so I have warned both Lguipontes and Reiniger321. If either of them reverts the other's edits to IPA text again without appropriate discussion, I will issue blocks. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Ohioana reported by User:Tokyogirl79 (Result: Indef)[edit]

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


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


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [43]

Comments: I'm reporting an ongoing reversion war between myself and User:Ohioana, which is pretty much a SPA that only edits Hughes's articles. The long story short is this: I came across the article, finding it not only out of date, but also suffering from some copyvio since large parts of the text in the biography section have been directly lifted from the author's bio page. [44] I've not only edited the page to be more neutral, but I've combined all of the information about the one thing he is known for (Lorien Legacies) into one section and listed multiple reliable sources that talked about his leaving the series and why that might be. Ohioana has not only accused me of being biased and vandalizing the page because they personally didn't like what I wrote. The thing is, it's backed up with multiple independent and reliable sources and is never stated exactly as being cold hard fact, just that multiple reliable sources such as the WSJ had reported that Hughes had problems with the contract along with disliking the direction the series was going in. Every time I revert the edits, Ohioana reverts them back with the justification that they're "incorrect". I've yet to get any true explanation as to why, other than it appearing to be that they dislike that the page isn't full of glowing praise for Hughes, something I'd noticed in their edits for Hughes's At Dawn (novel), which was also full of copyvio, weasel words, and reviews taken out of context. I've outright asked if they were connected to Hughes in some fashion, only to have that ignored. My reasons for this is that as far as the general public has reported, all we have to go on are the news articles such as the one by the WSJ and NY Magazine, so there's nothing that can actually disprove that what these news sources have reported on are incorrect. I'd reported this to the admin board since I'd had the accusations of vandalism and bias, only to not really get much help. Rather than have this keep going on, I waited it out until I could bring it up here because this isn't going to stop anytime soon. There was also another user that was reverting my edits- specifically the same edits Ohioana has issues with ([45]), but they seem to have stopped so I'm not as worried about them.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 01:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

  • The user has again reverted edits. Can someone please do something about this? I've tried resolving it but I'm just getting ignored while the user does as they please without anyone doing something beyond "please stop" messages.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – Indef by a checkuser, per this notice. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Michaelt54 and User:Fat&Happy reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Glenn Beck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Michaelt54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and: Fat&Happy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: Honestly, I have no clue.

By Fat&Happy:

...And more. Some of them are hard reverts, but still reverts.

By Michaelt54:


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Michaelt54 has been warned, Fat&Happy has not, but has been around since 2009.

Attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: They've been talking at User_talk:Fat&Happy#Glenn_Beck, but no avail.

Comments:
I'm not involved, I was just hoping to wait until these two quit fighting to figure out what the hell's going. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

  • User:Michaelt54's repeated additions to this article constitute negative, unsourced information about a living person. This user has acknowledged—by blanking—a WP:BLP warning I issued but has continued to make the identical problematic edits. Although User:Fat&Happy ideally would have warned and reported User:Michaelt54, I believe that User:Fat&Happy's reverts are technically exempt from WP:3RR because of the BLP issue. (I am slightly involved, having warned User:Michaelt54 twice and reverted him once.) Rivertorch (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC) Added: I misread this report. My comments refer to the edit war at Chuck Norris; I have no opinion on the edit war at Glenn Beck. Rivertorch (talk) 06:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. The report is on Beck. The edit-warring is flagrant by both parties and has do with categorization and subcategorization, hardly something to battle over. It has zero to do with BLP. Neither editor was warned of the edit-warring on the Beck article before filing this report. Once warned, neither editor has touched the article. As for Norris, the edit-warring there is also flagrant, although older (October 10 instead of October 11). It also has to do with categories, but it's more controversial because the category Michael kept adding was Category:Intelligent design advocates. F&H claimed there was no support in the body of the article for the cat. F&H repeatedly referred to a BLP issue in their reversions, including WP:BLPCAT (the cat is only very marginally supported in the body, not enough, in my view, to include it). The BLP exemption is better than some in this instance but not a slam dunk. BLPCAT applies only if you think the category "suggest[s] a person with a poor reputation." The edit-warring on the Norris article has also stopped. Michael is a very new editor. F&H is a seasoned editor. I think a block of both editors can be justified, despite the warning issue. Michael is more culpable because of the BLP issue, but the Beck war was wholly unnecessary on F&H's part. That said, because both have stopped, I'm hoping this will go away. I've left brief warnings on both editors' talk pages that I will block them if they continue on either article. However, other admins may take a less lenient view and block them now, and I have to go off-wiki now.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I was not being Flagrant. I provided my source on the chuck norrris article(his own words) from a townhall.com article. http://townhall.com/columnists/chucknorris/2008/04/22/win_ben_steins_monkey Also, I used a source on the Glenn Beck aricle Fast happy was being a troublemaker.--Michaelt54 (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

It usually takes two to edit war. Please use the talk page and get others involved and try not to edit war.--Malerooster (talk) 01:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Michael, you left this message on my talk page. You also stated, "You need to block Fat&Happy he is continuing to edit war and not listening to the rules". Your statement is false. The only one of the two of you who have edited the Beck and Norris articles since my warnings is you. F&H hasn't touched either article. You've edited both. In the Beck article, you added a category, but not the category you and F&H were battling over. In the Norris article, you added the intelligent design category back in but you found a source that arguably supports it (it's not as clear as it could be). You did both of these things without any discussion with F&H anywhere (as far as I can tell). So, I'm a bit conflicted as to whether you should be blocked. Certainly, your conduct has been less than exemplary. So, I'm going to invite F&H to comment here. I'd like to know if they agree with your edits. I'll decide after that what to do, although, again, any admin can take action without consulting with me if they feel so inclined.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
It appears that neither Fat&Happy nor Michaelt54 have chosen to come here to promise to stop warring. (Michael54 has commented above that he is right and the other party is wrong). Since the last reverts by either party to Glenn Beck or Chuck Norris were on October 11, and it is now late in the day on October 12, this report is on the way to going stale. Nonetheless this war is so simple-minded and obvious that if either party resumes their revert war, a block is likely. EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. The two editors have exhausted my patience. Unfortunately, both decided to edit-war in other articles (Rudy Giuliani and Robert De Niro), over the same issue of parent and subcategories. Although Fat&Happy reverted only 3 times in each article, thereby technically eluding a 3RR breach, Michael54 arguably reverted 4 times in the De Niro article and clearly reverted 4 times in the Giuliani article, and possibly 5 times based on a revert by an IP, which I assume to be Michael. Given the history, this report, and the warning, Fat&Happy cannot escape a block for edit-warring because they stopped at three. After the blocks expire, any resumption of this kind of edit-war on any article should be met with blocks of increased duration.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

User:الطبيب الراحل.23 AND User:86.96.57.58 reported by User:DeCausa (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Fall of Constantinople (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: الطبيب الراحل.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) AND 86.96.57.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [54]


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

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

Comments:

The first three reverts were User:الطبيب الراحل.23. After the edit warring warning was posted on the user's page the IP address located in Dubai immediately began reverting (the next 4 reverts) with the same edit. DeCausa (talk) 10:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Result: Semiprotected by another admin. Two different single-use IPs have shown up here with the same mission, to add a reference to the work of Dr. Saiyed Ali to the article. Neither has used the talk page. It is hard to resist the inference that the brand-new account User:الطبيب الراحل.23 is the person operating these IPs. Nonetheless he is not blocked, but merely warned. Try to get consensus on the talk page for this change. Further reinsertion of this material prior to consensus will probably lead to the obvious admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

User: 75.51.167.249 reported by User: LoveMonkey (Result: 48h)[edit]

Page: Anti-religious campaign during the Russian Civil War (1917–1921) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
and
Page: Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 75.51.167.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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


For the article Anti-religious campaign during the Russian Civil War (1917–1921)


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Since this is an anonymous IP I did it on the article talkpage [71] I did it on one of the above article talkpages.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [72]

Comments:

OPTIONAL: I have tried to get the editor to compromise and at least provide info that could possibly be put in a critical of section of at least one article. However the contributor appears to want to counter my sources and information with the accusation that all of my scholars and sources and people of power are liars. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I have now left a 3RR warning for the IP editor. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Result: IP blocked 48 hours. The editor seems to be engaged in a campaign of POV-pushing about religious persecution in the Soviet Union and he has no interest in consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 12:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

User:174.98.152.28 reported by User:Staszek Lem (Result: 3 months)[edit]

This user, repeatedy blocked, starts again edit wars in artilces related to Lating musis, Bolero, Salsa romantica. See article histories and his talk page for long wars. For a long time the user demonstrated 100% unwillingnes to provide references to his questioned edits despite numerous requests. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked - Three months by User:Materialscientist for disruptive editing, per a report at WP:AIV. EdJohnston (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Special:Contributions/38.103.168.4 reported by User:E8 (Result: 31 hours)[edit]

Page: Black Diesel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Special:Contributions/38.103.168.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [78]

Comments:
The user has responded strongly after the page was proposed for deletion. The user has repeatedly removed templates from the page and completely ignored the objections to the page content. I did delete a large swath of the page, but did so piece by piece, noting the specific individual objections; this was ignored, with the user completely restoring multiple times. Things have devolved into conspiracies [79][80].--E8 (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Balph Eubank reported by User:Moxy (Result: Both blocked, article protected)[edit]

Page: Template:Civility (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Balph Eubank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

Note: no 4th revert in 24 hours (5 reverts over 48+ hours) - but clear threat to continue reverting over and over - (Signs of disruptive editing).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned about 3revert rule for the related essay being added to this template

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: On going talk at essay page - People are talking but revert after revert (on 2 pages) instead of waiting for any outcome/consensus on what to do. Comments:

  • Template should be locked (its high profile) if this editors cant talk over edit waring.
  • LOL who am I edit warring with, myself? Or is this just another example of certain people being exempt from rules? Merridew has been relentlessly hounding me, making personal attacks, accusing me of being an "edit warrior" (while he himself engages in stale reverts), etc. I will say this: I'm intrigued as to how this report will turn out. I'll also point out a related issue at [ Wikipedia talk:Blanking userpages of blocked editors is not necessarily gravedancing]. Note that Nikkimaria has engaged in civil discussion with me and we've come to a reasonable agreement, whereas Merridew just blanks information and continues commenting on contributors rather than content. I'm sure that's totally unrelated, though. - Balph Eubank 20:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
If you wish to address/have concerns about personal attacks pls bring them to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.Moxy (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I think they're pertinent to the topic at hand. This did not spontaneously form in a vacuum. - Balph Eubank 21:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
No matter how many personal attacks back and forth there are that is not a reason to edit war - both you and Br'er Rabbit (your edit war friend) need to talk it out. At Wikipedia there is basic conduct and behavioral policies/guides that all should try to follow. And yes they apply to all (both you and Br'er Rabbit).Moxy (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
dude won't quit; it was nikki who first removed this as inappropriate. moar:
Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I protected the template the other day and warned that it shouldn't be edit warred over. I think I might be too involved to use my tools here, but this looks like transparent edit warring--and I don't see any justification for breaking 3RR. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked already (Balph and Rabbit, not Moxy who reported this). ~Amatulić (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Spshu reported by User:Sjones23 (Result: Warned)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [81]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [86]

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Marvel_Studios#Disney_Distribution

Comments:

The user has been involved in a dispute over at the Marvel Studios page regarding the distribution deal between Paramount Pictures and Walt Disney Pictures. Unfortunately, the user has already violated 3RR. What is the best way to help resolve this situation? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


My only comment on the situation is that I provided sources explicitly supporting my (and others') positions and Spshu picked out sentences from near the bottom of said articles, out of context, to try to support his position on the matter. I did not violate 3RR, neither did Sjones, and neither of us "conspired together" as alleged below, and on my talk page. I simply wish for the page to accurately reflect the facts, and consider all of my edits to have been in good faith. Thanks, and sorry that this seems to be spiraling out of control. I did try to step aside. -Fandraltastic (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I know. I also want the page to accurately reflect the facts as well. The sources provided by Fandraltastic supports his and other editors' positions on the distribution deals. However, Spshu picked out sentences from near the bottom of the articles in question, out of context, in an attempt to support his position on the matter. I believe that all of my edits have been in good faith so far. I have not violated 3RR, nor did I want to conspire together with Fandraltastic. I honestly believe that Spshu refuses to get the point in doing so. I also apologize if it seemed to be spiraling out of control as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
How convene, now they want to have the "page to accurately reflect the facts as well". When I was arguing facts, they just want what ever source to support their position no matter what the whole of the source said. Instead of continuing discussion, they continue to revert. --Spshu (talk) 19:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Fandraltastic indicating that he was going to flog the same source and not act in good faith. After an earlier source was show that Marvel could select the date, showing source with them picking the date is meaningless. Given I gave Richiekim time (since June) to find a better source and acceptance of Betty Logan's source show I operated under good faith. --Spshu (talk) 19:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and anyone reading the sources I provided can see there is no confusion, no way to misread. They are incredibly clear. You continued to bold portions of sentences and misread/ignore the rest, and type your sentences in all caps as if to yell at me. I'm not going to continue arguing this, and I had actually stopped responding to your belligerence on the talk page and was attempting to excise myself from the situation. Until you left a note on my talk page, indicating that you were reporting me for doing nothing wrong. There is a clear consensus that the films will be distributed by Disney, and at least a dozen sources indicating this to be the case. It's ironic that you want to talk about others flogging sources, as you continue to flog a source from 2007, noting a deal that included up to 10 films, i.e. potentially 10 films. Later sources indicating that only 6 films were agreed upon went ignored, and you continued with your all caps sentences and misreading. Honestly, I'm sort of done here, and at this point just want the admins to make their decision so we can all move on. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

←Because you were implying/infering which is not in the source. I point that out then you stand what amounts to "I right no matter what I say". You were the one misread/ignoring when I bold to point that out to you, once again restate that you were right with no counterargument. In effect needling me and being belligerent. Claiming that your hands are clear; even with one edit, you can consider guilty of edit warring, 3RR is just the clear line. Second you ended up here do to Sjones23's reporting of me, so you can thank him for that. Second, consensus can not override the facts of source or lack there in. You flogged the sources about the 10 films incorrrect and you ignored every correction of your misconception. Seems an attempt at ticking me off and you wonder why some one is belligerent when you cannot seem to conprehend some any sort of concept and seem to be doing so purposely. 10 films - 6 films (produced or bought out) equal 4 films remaining. The 10 film was the whole slate that the original source indicating was in the domestic distribution deal with Paramount which you kept reading the financing part of that source not the distribution part and as you missed in the 6 film source was that they added foreign distribution for five films. But you ignored that it dealt only with foreign distribution as I pointed out but you continued your state of denial about that and other sources.--Spshu (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Here are the two sources in question. [87] [88] The first reports on a renegotiation of the original deal, specifying 6 films, a new fee, and additional foreign distribution. Nowhere does it say or imply or mention that is it referring to only foreign distribution, as you continue to state and bold and type in caps. In fact, it explicitly states that it is referring to global distribution. The second source states that Disney bought out the rights to the final two films Paramount had on the renegotiated contract. Literally the first sentence: "The Walt Disney Studios deal to buy Paramount Pictures out of the final two films of its six-picture distribution deal with Marvel Studios". Yet you dismiss this and claim I am misreading or misrepresenting the articles. It is literally right in front of you, stated explicitly, matter-of-factly. I don't know how to explain this more clearly, and I know you're going to just claim that I'm wrong again, so I don't know how to proceed. -Fandraltastic (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
It is not explicity, you are implying. "The deal includes theatrical distribution in foreign territoies previously serviced by Marvel through local distribution entities (Japan, Germany, France, Spain, and Australia/New Zealand)." And it doesn't state that the deal was a renegotation or negation of the orignal deal, just a "big overall deal", which isn't vary clear as it can refer to the fact that Paramount has the worldwide distribution for 5 films in addition to the previous domestic agreement for 10 films. "The Walt Disney Studios, Paramount Pictures and Marvel Studios announced they have reached an agreement under which Paramount will transfer its worldwide marketing and distribution rights to Disney for Marvel Studios’ The Avengers and Iron Man 3." and "The Walt Disney Studios deal to buy Paramount Pictures out of the final two films of its six-picture distribution deal with Marvel Studios..." Combined we can only concluded that the second agreement is done. Again, you are infering what you want, none of them are explicity in what you want them to mean. The bolding was to tip you off to that the source doesn't say what you think it say. Caps to point out that you failed to pick up on my logical that seemly purposefully denial in any regards to my arguments and counter arguments since was force to flog the arguments again and again. That just show to me that you don't have a grasp of the material at hand and you just want what you want sources be dammed. --Spshu (talk) 13:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I said my piece regarding content on the articles talk page, however regarding the behavioral issues, after the first revert the editors involved should not have edited the disputed content again until the issue has been settled in discussion regardless if you are right or wrong.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I have already filed a request for comment on the dispute over at Talk:Marvel Studios#Request for comment. If I did get involved in this edit war, then I apologize, as I know better than to get involved in an edit war regardless of who is right or wrong. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

What the dispute is OVER as I pointed out that you continue to edit war after the dipute was resolved (see below - "5th" revert). So what is is this meaning less RFC for? Except to confuse the "responsing" administrator so you don't get the warning. 75.151.7.189 (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC) (--Spshu (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC))

Counter Reporting[edit]

This has been in discussion on the talk page since June]. Editors reported have ignored that fact and have edit war and attempt to blame me for edit warring when the sources did not support their position. Nor did they notify me of this ANI filed after the dispute was resolved. Sjones23, even edit warred after the dispute was resolved.

I acted in good faith requesting a source that actual supported their position and I accepted one when presented. Then Sjones23 even 'reverted' that edit. Spshu (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Spshu (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I did not intend to be disruptive in the first place, and was only trying to stop the disruption, so I apologize for inadvertently causing disruption in doing so. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
So you join the distruptive side that had since JUNE to find a source and joined the edit war? That really is trying to stop the distruption? --Spshu (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Result: User:Spshu is warned for edit warring. Seems like four reverts in just over 24 hours. The talk page is leaning against Spshu's position right now. Please use the RfC to reach a conclusion. Continued reverting that is not supported by consensus may lead to a block. It seems funny that people would dispute over itty-bitty details of distribution deals. It is hard to see why these would be important to the average reader who just wants to know something about Marvel Studios. EdJohnston (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
What? I already agree to their position when some one (Betty Logan) actually showed me a source that supported their position. They were reverting with out letting the discussion play out. It has to do with who continues with distribution. They want to you itty-bitty details to claim that Paramount did not have additional movies to distribution. I just told them that their sources did not support their claim. Thus they were infering and doing original research against standard WP procedures. The average reader might what to know if Paramount was/is still involved with distributing MVL Production movies (Marvel Studio's slate). Your warning is meaningless as you did not look at what was going on, EdJohnston, even what was presented here as Sjones23 reverted my edit that agreed with their position with a source that actually supported their position instead of infering. 75.151.7.189 (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC) (--Spshu (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC))

User:Kanthi78 reported by User:Scray (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Ciprofloxacin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kanthi78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [89]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [95]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [96]

Comments:

I suspect that these edits by 76.177.28.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) are relevant, too (same 24 hour period):

  • IP user revert #1: [97]
  • IP user revert #2: [98]
  • IP user revert #3: [99]

notified IP user: [100]

I just realized, in looking back at this, that I may have violated 3RR, and if so I accept that this may result in my being blocked. The traffic with multiple editors involved, at Insulin and Ciprofloxacin, that I lost track and I apologize - I assure you that it's never happened before and I will not let it happen again. Very disappointed in myself. -- Scray (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Scray, are you sure? By my count, you have 3 reverts today at Ciprofloxacin. Zad68 16:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
For some reason I was thinking that 3 reverts, rather than 4, was a violation (yes, I'm a relative noob when it comes to edit warring and I should've read the guidance above more closely) so I may be on safe ground. We have also tried hard to work collaboratively with the warring editor because it's not clear that they understand the policies. -- Scray (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Is there a problem with this report? I see others getting comments and actions from admins, but this one seems to have been ignored while User:Kanthi78 continues to add problematic content without engaging in any way in discussion (on article or user talk), not even using edit summaries. -- Scray (talk) 03:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours--Bbb23 (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Keerthi78 reported by User:Zad68 (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: Insulin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Keerthi78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [101]



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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See user's talk page, edit sumaries and article talk page, several of us (myself, Boghog, Scray) have tried to get Keerthi78 to understand why his edits aren't acceptable and to discuss on talk pages, but no engagement, just reverting/readding what is substantially the same content.

Zad68 21:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Note that it looks like I have 4 reverts at Insulin for today because I reverted two related pieces of the same content in two separate reverts. If you count those two together as one edit (I should have just done them together), that would make 3. If you count them separately that would make 4. Just to make sure this wasn't a problem I self-reverted the second of those here, and in the edit summary I mentioned what I was doing. Zad68 21:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
This IP is the same IP as in the report for user:Kanthi78 that I reported above. -- Scray (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • It looks like I have violated the 3RR rule myself. After repeated attempts to engage the editor on the talk page and a hectic day in real life, I lost track. Sorry about that. Boghog (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked - 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 12:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

User:LanguageXpert reported by User:Kwamikagami (Result: Both editors warned)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [111]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [119][120][121][122]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [123]

Comments:

I don't want to discourage a newbie, but several comments suggest this is a political campaign, and it shows no sign of abating, with similar edit wars over the same topic at Hindko language and Saraiki language a week ago. All of these articles have been protected for a month due to IP edit warring (though often reverting each other, so I'm not suggesting sock-puppetry). I told the editor last night after 6RR that I would report him if he did it again, and today I find he did. — kwami (talk) 23:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. The last edit by LanguageXpert was almost 24 hours ago. There's clear edit-warring, and with one exception, multiple editors have reverted LanguageXpert's edits. However, Kwami, you have also edit-warred. I count 4 reverts before you stopped. It's true that LanguageXpert's contduct has been worse than yours, but, as you acknowledge, they're new, whereas you are anything but new. At the moment, the article is quiet. If LanguageXpert reverts again, I'll block them. If you revert again, I'll block you.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
You're right. I lost count with all the POV-pushing I was undoing. Sorry. — kwami (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the acknowledgment.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

User:177.18.46.98 reported by User:J. M. (Result: 31h)[edit]

Page: Novak Djokovic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 177.18.46.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [124]


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [[130]]

Comments:
The user keeps changing the "Born in" countries for tennis players from the original countries they were born in to current countries they represent, probably as 177.18.147.70, too. As you can see from the page histories, his edits are reverted by many different people ([131],