Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive205

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:I-learned-it-from-the-pizzaman reported by Tgeairn (Result: Blocks, semi)[edit]

Page: List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users being reported: I-learned-it-from-the-pizzaman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Chacha00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 07:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC editor 1:'

  1. 06:16, 13 January 2013 (edit summary: "/* Series */")
  2. 06:19, 13 January 2013 (edit summary: "/* Series */")
  3. 06:22, 13 January 2013 (edit summary: "/* Series */")
  4. 06:30, 13 January 2013 (edit summary: "/* Series */")
  5. 06:34, 13 January 2013 (edit summary: "/* Series */")
  6. 06:39, 13 January 2013 (edit summary: "/* Series */")
  7. 06:40, 13 January 2013 (edit summary: "/* Series */")
  8. 06:42, 13 January 2013 (edit summary: "/* Series */")
  9. 06:43, 13 January 2013 (edit summary: "/* Series */")
  10. 06:50, 13 January 2013 (edit summary: "/* Series */")

editor 2:

  1. 06:21, 13 January 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 532820664 by I-learned-it-from-the-pizzaman (talk)")
  2. 06:23, 13 January 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 532820946 by I-learned-it-from-the-pizzaman (talk)")
  3. 06:31, 13 January 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 532821612 by I-learned-it-from-the-pizzaman (talk)")
  4. 06:35, 13 January 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 532822030 by I-learned-it-from-the-pizzaman (talk)")
  5. 06:42, 13 January 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 532822581 by I-learned-it-from-the-pizzaman (talk)")
  • Diff of warning 1: here
  • Diff of warning 2: here

Comment: Additional IPs and SPAs (apparent socks) are also involved.

Tgeairn (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours to the two reported editors by User:Anomie. The article has now been semiprotected for a week. EdJohnston (talk) 05:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

User:NikoVee reported by Tgeairn (talk) (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Geoffrey Edelsten (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 07:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

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

  1. 06:18, 13 January 2013 (edit summary: "Restoring content removed by Matilda. Left detailed information on my own talk page. Did not know that making a large edit was some type of violation on Wikipedia.")
  2. 06:26, 13 January 2013 (edit summary: "Glad you agree. I am sure you are aware of edit warring. There is nothing against making "too many edits" They are all sourced and from NPOV. I am sorry if you cannot take the time to compare the versions.")
  3. 07:00, 13 January 2013 (edit summary: "Again, reverting the changes and encourage you to take the discussion to the talk page. I have requested page protection in order to take this to a more civil location.")
  4. 07:07, 13 January 2013 (edit summary: "You have got to be kidding me. You have to be three people in the same room or a single person editing from different accounts. You reach of wanting to disrupt this page.")
  5. 07:13, 13 January 2013 (edit summary: "Actually, I have. I also stated such when filing the protection request. You and your other accounts have breached it much before. I knew that is why editors who have not edited for months have come on and made edits. you know what you're doing,.")
  • Diff of warning: here

Tgeairn (talk) 07:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice. I made good edits to that article and they were then bombarded. I believe the edit warring was done prior to me as there is persistence from three "meatpuppets" that they will continuosly revert as I made "too large" or "too many" edits? Investigation was just filed. [1]--NikoVee (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Also, please add users WWGB, Orderinchaos, and Matilda. Although not "technically" violating the 3RR rule, they have shown that they are willing to revert any edit made which can also be considered edit warring. --NikoVee (talk) 07:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
No - I did not say I would revert any edit. I asked for edits to be made to sections or paragraphs at a time so that they could be reviewed by other editors and consensus gained. Very large edits were made to a contentious article by a new but not inexperienced user.--Matilda talk 07:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I requested that you take the discussion to the talk page (see above and on my talk page and your talk page). You did not say you would revert any edit, but your edits along with the other two editors, who strangely never edit at the same time you are editing, have clearly shown that you are not willing to even look at the edits and revert the article back to the horrible shape it was in. If you wanted me to break it out in paragraphs, say such and I will gladly go back and do it paragraph by paragraph. The other option would be to compare the revisions of the article and point out the issues that you have ON THE TALK PAGE! Instead, we are here wasting everyone else's time because for some reason you do not like that the article was editing into a more neutral article. Sorry you hate me or hate this guy, but having a neutral article is what will continue to improve the reliability of articles on Wikipedia. --NikoVee (talk) 07:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

To hopefully move this along and leave admins alone to do other things, I do not believe that there is going to be another edit warring issue from any of the involved editors. I have placed a neutral point of view tag at the top of the article and also left a notice on the talk page. A request was filed with the neutral point of view noticeboard to review the proposed edits that I made and were reverted. I don't like speaking for others, but I do not believe there will be any more issues from anyone involved in regards to edit warring. Issue resolved unless WWGN, Orderinchaos, or Matilda feel otherwise. --NikoVee (talk) 08:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Result: Warned. If NikoVee makes any more controversial edits of Geoffrey Edelsten in the last seven days that don't receive a previous consensus on the talk page, he may be blocked without further discussion. the Geoffrey Edelsten article has been the subject of legal threats in the past so admins are not going to take it lightly. The idea that long-term established editors such as WWGN, Orderinchaos and Matilda are meatpuppets of each other will not win support from any regular editors and raises questions about the judgment of the person who asserts it. If we get much more of this nonsense a block for disruptive editing may be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

User:WLU reported by User:LCDR IAM (Result: Semi)[edit]

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

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

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


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

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

Comments:

Note that I am not (I think) past my 3rd revert, so it is unlikely I will get blocked. However, I am now discussing with LCDR IAM on talk:transfer factor about improving the page, and he seems to have acknowledged that some of his edits were problematic and agreed to fix them. As such, perhaps the reviewing admin could WP:UCS regarding any possible WP:BOOMERANG issues and not block anyone? Assuming it remains civil and fruitful. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

You are correct that you did not violate WP:3RR. I do see the discussion on the talk page. At the same time, I also see a lot of disruption to the article by multiple editors. Is User:74.96.67.114 also LCDR IAM? If so, it would be good if they stopped using the IP address and logged in anytime they edit. I am willing to give you leeway to work out your differences, but I don't want to see any more disruption to the article because of misunderstandings as to how to implement any consensus, or frustration by the process, or whatever.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
No idea if the anon is the same person. If they are, they have an account now, and are using it (yay!) and if not we can resolve that later. LCDR IAM seems to be willing to listen, and we're both online, so it looks like we may be able to resolve at least some things through discussion. Yobol has reverted to the version before LCDR IAM's edits, I will suggest we build from there. If further issues come up, I will drop a line (or if I'm the problem, LCDR IAM knows where the noticeboard is).
I hope that's acceptable, let me know if you have any objections or comments. Since we started talking, things have calmed down markedly. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Result: No violation of 3RR by logged-in editors. It seems there is a discussion in progress. Since at least one IP has engaged in reverting without joining in on the talk page, I've semiprotected for two months. EdJohnston (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Chicago Style (without pants) reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: 48h)[edit]

Page: Palestinian people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chicago Style (without pants) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [5]

  • 1st revert: [6]
  • 2nd revert: [7]

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

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

Comments:

Palestinian people is subject to 1RR per WP:ARBPIA#Further remedies. According to the warning at the top of Talk:Palestinian people, "Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence." (emphasis in original) — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked - 48 hours, notified of WP:ARBPIA. This may not be their first Wikipedia account, and this is probably not the first time they have edited I/P articles. EdJohnston (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Ворот93 reported by User:Wikiwind (Result: Blocked 48 hours by User:Bwilkins)[edit]

Page: Heterosexism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ворот93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [9]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]

Comments:
User has been warned and reverted three times by three different users.--В и к и T 21:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Topic starter is obviously engaged in pro-gay-norm PoV pushing. The other two "warners" are deep in GLBT theme editing and are also reverting the slightest edit that does not conform to the gay prides PoV. Ворот93 (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Languages of Pakistan reported by User:Kwamikagami (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Languages of Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Edit warring (& possible sock puppetry) to add extraneous detail to a summary article. — kwami (talk) 10:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

There was indeed sockpuppetry, all socks of LanguageXpert currently blocked. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

User:History2007 reported by User:207.112.105.233 (Result: Semi)[edit]

This most simple report I can imagine (the template is very confusing and time consuming) I repot on user: History2007. Please read section : "IP WP:OR" on Talk Page of the article "Lost years of Jesus". My attempt was to introduce better information on base of present and official statements and discoveries. Finally I just proposed to remove the old over 30 decades reference or recognize how the favorable professors of History2007 counted the 15-18 year gap in 1989 and/or in 1999. I do not think his actions were OK. Please pass the report to appropriated spot for fix up. I will look for note from you in section: "IP WP:OR" Talk Page of the article "Lost years of Jesus" --207.112.105.233 (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

A content issue, no edit war, does not pertain to this board. IP has talked to multiple users on article talk, has no support and no sources. I will not respond further here, will be a waste of time. Final comment from me here. History2007 (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
User:207.112.105.233, User:65.95.176.24 and User:205.189.94.11 keep pushing the same point of view, despite a prolonged discussion on the Talk Page. Probably the same editor. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
The issues seems to have been raised on my talk page by the IP after I rejected one of their edits. Oddbodz (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Result: Article semiprotected two months. When three IPs are being operated by the same person to conduct an edit war this violates WP:SOCK. EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment by Joshua Jonathan - With or without an appropriate block for IP? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment #2 by Joshua Jonathan - In total it's five IP's whic are being used: 70.28.64.86 65.95.176.24 207.112.105.233 205.189.94.13 205.189.94.11. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
What an amazing waste of time after all. It was the indef user:Serafin anyway. History2007 (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Hans Haase reported by User:Rtc (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Gustl Mollath (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hans Haase (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [16]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Gustl_Mollath#POV_additions

Comments:

User:Hans Haase is the main author of the respective article in German wikipedia. He is known to be heavily biased on the subject. He violates content policy and abuses Wikipedia to push POV on this matter, ignoring any arguments by other users and ignoring policy even after being pointed to several times. He already caused several edit wars over the past weeks on the German Wikipedia article, so this most recent one cannot be seen as an accident anymore. --rtc (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment I looked that article over and removed unsourced content and content sourced to primary sources and a blog. Hans Haase reverted it all back in , the diff is the 5th revert given above. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I am the contributor of the German article, right. I am contributing content. We have some lobbyism or involved editors who do not contribute, but just delete. I appers some persons would like to have the case away from the wikipedia. See the German's articles talk (Diskussion). Also editor have been asked by others if they are involved. When I ask a question up to four times and got no adequate answer, but personal (attacs) talk meaning I am wrong. We see what is really going on. --Hans Haase (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC) I did not refer on blogs. This was a talk in the German article. Other users linked to "Gabriele Wolf", a former general attorney who wrote about the case. But now I got blamed to do so. I never did! I just was asking why Gabriele Wolf's webpage still provides the same information while using a blog content management. I would be also wrong to say discount offers the best price always. --Hans Haase (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Your manifold justifications are completely irrelevant. You violated and continue to violate policies, including WP:3RR. This is the only matter of significance here. --rtc (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Result: Article protected three days. Please use this time to find a compromise. The alternative to protection would have been edit warring blocks for both User:Rtc and User:Hans Haase. I don't see any obvious BLP violations in the material added by either side, so I don't see that anybody's reverts are exempt from 3RR. If you have questions about usability of sources, consider WP:RS/N. Bear in mind that, when the situation is rapidly evolving in the media, the best plan may be a short article that documents only the stable facts that are very widely known. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. EdJohnston (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Just to set some things right: Material has been added by User:Hans Haase only, not by me. I attempted to remove some of it -- with the intention that "the best plan may be a short article that documents only the stable facts that are very widely known". But that is exactly the problem. If you try to do that, you end up in an edit war with User:Hans Haase, not only here, not only me, but several times with other users in German Wikipedia. His editing approach is one of pushing his own, biased opinion on the topic into the article, ignoring any arguments by others. He incorrectly assumes that this is justified if he cites primary sources that "prove" his points. Admittedly, this material was not in violation of BLP, but it was in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH and WP:PRIMARY. --rtc (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Cornelius383 reported by User:Bobrayner (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: Ananda Sutram (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cornelius383 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [23]

(Collectively they span slightly over 24h; only 4 reverts within any 24h period, strictly speaking)


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning after the second revert; warning after fourth revert; warning after fourth revert. A fifth revert followed a few hours later.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Ananda Sutram, User talk:Cornelius383#Policies.

Comments:
There have also been recent discussions about edit-warring on a couple of other related articles - I want to emphasise that Cornelius383 was NOT reverting there (though there have been other concerns), but was involved in the discussion so the three-revert rule can hardly be a surprise... bobrayner (talk) 10:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours for long-term edit warring at Ananda Sutram. User:Cornelius383 has insisted on retaining a version of the article holding more than 16,000 bytes of unsourced material, and has reverted this version back into place five times. The user has persisted in the face of reasonable explanations of policy provided by other editors. EdJohnston (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Raptor232 reported by User:Shadowjams (Result: Indef)[edit]

Page: Dhives Akuru (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Raptor232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [29]


Comments:This may not be the only account involved. There are striking similarities between edits from this account and User:AtefAadd, which was blocked back in December for similar edit warring. That editor's edits are also almost identical [34] to this editor's edit warring. The other edits from Raptor232 of late appear to be related to this "issue", see [35], [36], [37], and [38]. None of them are sourced, or even remotely explained. I don't have any background or knowledge of the underlying merits, but it seems quite clear the editor's in violation of edit warring on the particular article, and probably is part of a broader pattern. Their response on the talk page is particularly ironic since there's no talk page discussion that I saw on the subject. Shadowjams (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment. I took a look at both users contributions and have filed an SPI here Darkness Shines (talk) 10:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Raptor232‎ already indeffed as is his sockpuppet. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked - Indef to Raptor232 by User:Lectonar for 'personal attacks with racist undertones'; AtefAadd is blocked indef as his sock. Thanks to Darkness Shines for filing the SPI. EdJohnston (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Shinatuah reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: 31h)[edit]

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

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

Time reported: 10:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Naturopathy
  1. 09:23, 15 January 2013 (edit summary: "")
  2. 10:23, 15 January 2013 (edit summary: "Removed vague and clearly biased statements.")
  3. 10:26, 15 January 2013 (edit summary: "Fixed vague and highly biased statements.")
  4. 10:28, 15 January 2013 (edit summary: "Fixed vague and highly biased statements.")
  5. 15 January 2013 (edit summary: "Fixed statements that were vague, emotional, and clearly biased. Wikipedia is not the place for bashing on somethingnyou don't like, it's to deliver the facts without bias.")
Homeopathy
  1. 09:49, 15 January 2013 (edit summary: "")
  2. 10:05, 15 January 2013 (edit summary: "/* Explanations of perceived effects */")
  3. 10:09, 15 January 2013 (edit summary: "")
  4. 10:18, 15 January 2013 (edit summary: "Vague and biased statements, also untrustworthy sources")
  • Diff of warning: here

Comments: Past 3rr already, and still going. Account seems to have been created for the sole purpose of edit warring to remove large swaths of reliably sourced content.   — Jess· Δ 10:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

There have been more reverts since. I'm not going to bother adding them to the report, since he's already past 3rr. Check his contrib history for a fairly clear picture.   — Jess· Δ 11:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Jimthing reported by User:67.170.192.66 (Result: No violation)[edit]

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


The reverts are simply restores of the same uncited (since July!), dubious content, with aggressive edit summaries:

"Furthermore, the speed at which it can be decoded makes it useful for limited-power devices such as [[iOS]] devices.{{citation needed|date=July 2012}}"
  • 1st revert: diff
  • 2nd revert: diff
  • 3rd revert: [diff] Only two, but see comment.


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff, shows editor doesn't care about verifiability - a SHORT discussion too.

Comments:

The diff immediately above shows another agrees that it's uncited, dubious info and doesn't belong. And suggests it's puffery.

Jimthing's edit summary : "user don't remove info without knowing facts" makes it clear that there's no intention of cooperating. --67.170.192.66 (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The edits in question are from September 12 and January 7, there's no edit warring issue here, but I'll leave him a note. Ryan Vesey 19:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. (I think Jim's edit summaries match the definition of "the use of confrontational edits to win a content dispute." to a T, which is why I posted here. Along with the discussion, it all shows editor doesn't care about verifiability, etc.) --67.170.192.66 (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
As per Ryan Vesay's comment, this is absolutely nothing like an "edit war" being MONTHS apart! So your limited WP site experience (what, less than 20 edits in circa 6 months) does not fair you well here at all. I have added a citation from a professional source which you could have found yourself in 2 minutes searching, rather than wasting time bringing such a trivial case here. The only reason I didn't bother before was because unlike you —given your non-extensive edit record— I was actually likely very busy editing other more important WP articles in a more extensive manner. This needs closing accordingly, asap. Jimthing (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Result: No violation. The above report only shows two reverts. In any case Jimthing has now added a source for the disputed statement. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Kleinsma80 reported by User:Dapi89 (Result: Warned)[edit]

  • Pages in dispute:

This user is impossible to negotiate with. I've asked for cooperation on his talk page and he responded by deleting it. I guess, its a sign of their intentions. On the Rotterdam Blitz article and Kampfgeschwader 54 he has continually reverted and launched attacks against myself and other users. He has violated WP:3RR and WP:Civil. Dapi89 (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Update: Battle of the Hague. He has reverted me, accussed me of tampering with a source. Yet it was me that added the source originally and was correcting "Pyrrhic Dutch victory", changed by an IP, back to "Pyrrhic German victory", as it is in Hooton 2010. Dapi89 (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
You are pusher of a weird form of pseudo-German POV. I have seen your edits and you continually lurk around articles to do with WWII battles involving Germany. Where you seem very fond of adding things such as '(Decisive) German Victory' or making seemingly small changes in words such as changing (objective) 'bombings' to (daring) 'raids'. You ought to know that can (and will) eventually bring you into conflict with others. As what might be a glorious decisive and overwhelming German victory in your eyes is an unprovoked national tragedy for others. War is not a game. War is war, and it is not the scoreboard of a football match. Kleinsma80 (talk) 13:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Addition: Someone with your record of edit-warring and incivility should not be so eager to accuse others!Kleinsma80 (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
What a load of garbage. Stop lecturing others on articles you don't understand. You're tone, willingness to fight, threatening behaviour (on wikipedia which is supposed to be collaborative not competitive) will earn you nothing but contempt to others and may lead to you being kicked off wikipedia altogether. You have systematically reverted everything, regardless of it being sourced. You've done nothing but leave a trail of edit wars behind you.
I'm established. My contributions speak for themselves. No editor will be persuaded by this torrent of nonsense which demonstrates only your pursuit of you're own POV, lack of knowledge, and desire to fight against an imaginary 'pro-German' lobby. Dapi89 (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Your contributions indeed speak for themselves. I have systematically reverted your trickling with sources, your offensive euphemisms, and German '40 POV (not a pro-German lobby, as real German scholars do not have the POV you display!). I will continue to do that as long as this behavior continues as should everyone who wants a non-biased Wikipedia. The only thing you've done above here is show your true colors. Who's lecturing? Who's being denigrating? Who's accusing? You are. Kleinsma80 (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Both of you knock off the bullsh*t, it's unproductive and childish, and I do not care who started it, I WILL end it if I have to. Admins, I have left messages for both users encourage a diplomatic approach to the problem, and I have watchlisted the page. At the moment there is no official grounds for sanctions, but I am keeping tabs on the article in question and if it comes to it I will protect the page and/or block the editor(s) for edit waring. For now, though, I would prefer to take a wait and see approach so as not to borrow trouble. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I added Wolfgang Völz to the disputed articles, please pay a special attention to the attack edit comments by this user. Indeed this user is immune to discussions/suggestions from other users and keeps his POV-pushing, see today's edits in Battle for The Hague. --Denniss (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I've watchlisted the new article as well. I see a limited attempt to add sourced material to the Battle for the Hague article, but the material is not in english and I can not read german, so I can not say for sure if the information is from a reliable source. I'm also seeing some attempt at dialogue on that talk page. I think at the moment if the edit waring picks up again tomorrow the best thing to do will be to protect the pages for a while and see if the attempted dialogue doesn't firm up. If that does not happen then the next move will be to start blocking editor(s) for disruptive behavior. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

User:0oToddo0 reported by User:Astynax (Result: Stale )[edit]

Page: Two by Twos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 0oToddo0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [39]


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

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

Comments:

This user has previously engaged in drive-by tagging/defacing on this article and in the past has refused to accept references or consensus.

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale but feel free to hit up my talk page if he re-adds that tag again. I have warned him that a block will follow. ViridaeDON'T PANIC 08:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Paulduffill reported by User:Shrike (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page: Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Paulduffill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

  1. 12:36, 16 January 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 532848445 by Soosim (talk) See explanation in talk")
  2. 13:47, 16 January 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 533364255 by Soosim (talk) I have just completed the talk entry. Please read and respond in talk.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50]

Comments:
The article belong to WP:ARBPIA and its under 1RR.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. The editor has apologized on the article talk page for the "lapse" and would have self-reverted but someone else reverted him. I've formally notified the editor of the sanctions. I think that's enough unless there's another similar incident.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Skyring reported by User:Miesianiacal (Result: Skyring blocked 24 hours; Miesiniacal warned)[edit]

Page: Governor-General of Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Skyring (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 01:55, 17 January 2013

Previous version reverted to: 04:09, 17 January 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 06:20, 17 January 2013 Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 06:42, 17 January 2013

Comments:
Miesianiacal is being extremely generous in his counts here. A look at the diffs shows that different things are being changed, with the latter edits focussed on restoring sources which Miesianiacal has repeatedly removed, despite being invited to discuss his Bold edits.[51] The earlier reverts are simply inserts of a "citation needed" template to cover unsourced. Discussion ensued on the talk page, various changes were made and both sources and wording agreed upon. User:GoodDay could do with some reminding of our WP:RS policy. If a cite is requested it should be supplied. --Pete (talk) 07:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:3RR: "Undoing other editors—...whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert."
I stated I did not mean to remove the reference and restored it myself. That is incidental, however, as each time you restored the reference and on more occasions than those, you also reverted to your preferred wording. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 08:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Our articles need to be reliably sourced. The removal of sources constitutes vandalism. In this case, the source was one Miesianiacal and I had discussed at some length here. Its relevance to the topic, being the directly specific remarks of Australia's longest serving Chief Justice of the High Court, is crucial. Repeatedly removing it is wilful vandalism. --Pete (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

My mistake? I let myself be distracted by a tendentious editor. Luckily, I jumped out after 2-reverts. GoodDay (talk) 13:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Your mistake was in not pausing to think about whether you should repeatedly remove "citation required" templates from two different articles. I don't know what you were thinking, but if unsourced material is identified, it must be sourced, either by supplying a source or pointing out where the source lies in some other part of the article. You don't fix the problem by removing the template - that merely leaves unsourced content buried in the article! If an edit of yours is reverted - especially by a longstanding editor - then instead of allowing the red mist of rage to direct your actions, you should check with one or all of the three mentors whom you have accepted for that very purpose. I made a comment to that effect on your talk page, which you removed a few seconds later. --Pete (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. I have blocked Skhyring for 24 hours and warned Miesianiacal. Bbb23 (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

User:GeorgeLouis reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: No action (see comments))[edit]

Page: Talk:Frank L. VanderSloot (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GeorgeLouis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


  • 1st revert: [52], 16 Jan 20:56
  • 2nd revert: [53], 17 Jan 03:05
  • 3rd revert: [54], 17 Jan 05:03
  • 4th revert: [55], 17 Jan 11:18


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56] -- a diff that shows GeorgeLouis giving a warning to another editor, thus awareness of the need to comply with 3RR is readily apparent.


Comments:
George appears to think he is being attacked in the comment he is repeatedly removing. He's not, and WP:TPO makes it clear that editors should not remove other editors' comments particularly if there are objections: "This [right to remove others' comments] generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil".

Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe Nomo is acting in WP:Good faith, but please note Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable. And see also "If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence," which is also at WP:Good faith. A Talk Page is for improving the article, not for badgering editors. If Nomo has a better way of keeping the Talk Page conversation on track without insulting others, I would be happy to oblige. Perhaps he or she would accept the collapsing of this off-topic gibe instead of deleting it? GeorgeLouis (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
See User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles. "Diplomacy consists of combining honesty and politeness. Both are objectively valuable moral principles. Be honest with me, but don't be mean to me. Don't misrepresent my views for your own political ends, and I'll treat you the same way." GeorgeLouis (talk) 12:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
It's not off-topic, and it doesn't appear to be misrepresenting your views. However, may I suggest that RIR redact "whitewash", and replace "campaigning for" with a more neutral phrase, such as "working toward". That would make it more clearly talking about the edits, rather than the editor. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I would accept Arthur Rubin's suggestion in the spirit of Wikipedia:Negotiation. As I mentioned on my user page, I may have thinner skin than most people, but it is my skin, and it is I who am offended. I am not interested in carrying on any kind of war, only in being free from being attacked—and at the same time in maintaining a friendly and supportive environment on the WP talk pages. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

WIth only a bit of interpretation, one might read that statement as containing an intention to continue changing other people's posts -- perhaps even to the point of edit-warring beyond 3RR -- if those posts do not meet George's expectations. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Whatever. Anyway, I am taking a week-long Wikibreak. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Removal of personal attacks has been held in the past to be a "permitted edit" - the issue is whether accusing another editor of seeking to "whitewash" an article is a "personal attack." If such comments do constiture a "personal attack", historically editors may be blocked for making such attacks. If GL reasonably viewed it as a "personal attack" it is then a rather strong ameliorating consideration. Collect (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Removing it once was arguably reasonable. Doing it 4 times was an unequivocal violation of 3RR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
That depends on whether this noticeboard is for seeking solutions, or for seeking to get someone blocked. If the former, then a "protected class of edit" (removal of a personal attack - a template exists specifically for such editos) is important. If the latter, then no reasoned view will help. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
This latest act of disruptive editing is consistent with the pattern of editing/conduct George has established in the past on the Frank Vandersloot article. In the midst of the latest 3RR violation, he was misusing warning templates on my talk page[57] and has persisted in harassing me. It has become bad enough that I felt compelled to leave a warning on his talk page yesterday[58] because previous informal warnings about harassment and tendentious editing have been ignored. The 3RR violation is clear cut in this case and a block is not only warranted, it is long overdue. I find George's pleas for diplomacy and creating a friendly editing environment to be extremely insincere given that he has been filing frivolous 3RR complaints against me (not one of which was successful) on practically a weekly basis. Collect's modus operandi is similar and he and George march in lockstep on every issue, to the point where it is strongly indicative of WP:TAGTEAM. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Where in heck does this come from? The issue is whether what an editor reasonably percieves to be a personal attack belongs in view on an article talk page. The post above appears to be primarily a ... personal attack. As for the weird claim that I am in "lockstep" with any editor - my edits speak for themselves on several thousand articles. Meanwhile, I would like to point out that unsupported (and unsupportable) accusations of "tagteam" are, indeed, generally considered to be "personal attacks" and you likely are in a worse position than you likely should like when you make personal attacks on a noticeboard. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
The issue at hand is that the comment in question, while mildly critical, was not a personal attack by any stretch, yet George not only took it upon himself to remove the critical comment, he chose to edit war and violate 3RR over it. His combination of thin skin and an itchy trigger finger is not a good one. A block is warranted. And yes, you two have marched in lockstep on Vandersloot; it merits pointing out in this case as a caveat because you were so quick to jump in and try to excuse his indefensible conduct. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. I think I'm still involved and am therefore constrained from taking any action on this latest in a series of endless complaints about this article and the editors who edit it. That said, my recommendation is to decline it, if for no other reason than George's taking a week-long break.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps George would benefit from some advice on whether it would be appropriate for him to engage in this sort of behaviour again? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Given that GeorgeLouis has decided to take a break, a block at this point would be purely punitive (provided the edit warring doesn't continue, and for clarity's sake, any further edit warring is very likely to lead to a block). However, to be clear: GeorgeLouis, you did violate 3RR, and more so than that, repeatedly refactoring another editor's comments, especially if another editor disputes you doing so, is disruptive and will lead to a block. There is not a 3RR exemption for removing purported personal attacks, and this type of behavior creates far more trouble than it solves. RIR's comment could have been phrased more diplomatically, and "Focus on content, not the contributor" is generally good advice, but there's a long way between a mildly uncivil comment and a personal attack of the sort serious enough to warrant redaction. Regardless of that, however, it's probably a very bad idea for you to be edit warring to remove a comment that's specifically addressing you. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

User:0oToddo0 reported by User:Astynax (Result: 48h)[edit]

Page: Two by Twos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 0oToddo0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [59]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68] [69] [70] [71]

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

Comments:
The previous warning had no effect.

The previous warning had no effect and the administrator who told 0oToddo0 he would block him if he continued with the same behavior has "disappeared". I'm concerned this report will go "stale" as the other one did and nothing will be resolved. The user being reported has not only continued with edit warring, but has re-added a tag consensus was against being added and he's now added yet another tag that seems ill-advised. Apparently, this is a pattern with this user and he's just repeating old behavior he committed previously last year? It would sure be helpful is someone would take notice of this and do something to keep this frustration from continuing. Winkelvi (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked - 48 hours for long-term edit warring. In response to an earlier complaint, User:Viridae indicated at 08:24 on 16 January that User:0oToddo0 could be blocked if he continued to place tags against consensus: "if you re-add that tag again, in opposition to the apparent consensus, I will block you for edit warring immediately." Subsequently, at 21:40 on 16 January, the 'unbalanced' tag was added yet again. EdJohnston (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Norden1990 reported by User:Omen1229 (Result: Protected)[edit]


Reverts:

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – One week by User:Joe Decker. EdJohnston (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Handsome128 reported by User:CT Cooper (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Eurovision Song Contest 2013 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Handsome128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: Diff (most recent version which is not his own)

  • 1st revert: 1
  • 2nd revert: 2
  • 3rd revert: 3
  • 4th revert: 4


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Link (4th revert after warning)

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

Comments: Handsome128 is determined to have his version of the logo adorn Eurovision Song Contest 2013 and he will just robotically revert anyone that makes an edit that does otherwise. There has been some discussion on the talk page, which remains ongoing, but despite being notified of it, he seems to have no interest in participating and has made no comments at all on the subject of the logo. As can also been seen on Latvia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2013, his strategy of resoling content disputes seems to be to silently revert until he or other users give up. I'm involved so I cannot take admin action against him - I have stayed within 1RR, and nobody else has exceeded 3RR. CT Cooper · talk 20:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Result: Warned. Handsome128 has not reverted again in the last 24 hours. If he continues he may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

User:CarthCarsen reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: 31h)[edit]

Page: Aaron Swartz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 18:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

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

  1. 17:13, 18 January 2013 (edit summary: "/* Commentary on the case */ You can't have your misleading quote, to exonerate Aaron Swartz with a BS legal analysis by a non-expert, without some context to make it understandable. Its presence (with Hayes') is a NPOV violation")
  2. 18:31, 18 January 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 533720842 by Bonusballs (talk) Removing NPOV violation. See Talk page.")
  3. 18:42, 18 January 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 533728916 by Bonusballs (talk) Talk page clearly establishes that THERE IS NO CONSENSUS ON THIS QUOTE.")
  4. 18:47, 18 January 2013 (edit summary: "Fixing NPOV violation. Please refer to Talk page before trying to re-add it, instead of inaccurately characterizing situation as "one or two" editors against this misleading presentation. Sainting is not required here")
  • Diff of warning: here, in edit summary

Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Make sure the mischaracterizations of consensus and edit warring by Bonusballs are taken into context when you discuss the situation. Wikipedia is not the place for fan worship of any person, by presenting misleading out-of-context information or in any other way. I question Nomoskedasticity's neutrality on this issue as well. (ETA: ... especially as Nomoskedasticity him/herself has mischaracterized 6 or more users expressing concerns as "one or two" including myself, as can be seen in the recent history of the Aaron Swartz page.) CarthCarsen (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

List of users expressing serious concerns over the biased nature of the quote at issue, as presented, includes: ErrantX, Peteforsyth, My76Strat, AutomaticStrikeout and Chicken Wing, as well as myself. The ones attempting to deify Aaron Swartz in the relevant article have falsely presented that there is consensus where there is none; consensus is not a simple vote majority, and should include attempts to address all concerns, whereas here Bonusballs and pals have simply ignored those concerns and attempts to address them. User Bonusballs has engaged in an edit war spanning multiple days, regarding the fix of fairly clear NPOV violations, and with others has falsely presented that there is consensus to the contrary. User My76Strat, who is actually a pro-Swartz editor, even posted a fine fix for the misleading nature of at least the Demand Progress quote as presented; but of course the Swartz fan base, in the person of Bonusballs, would have none of it. There is more to the situation than just an editor making three consecutive undos/edits; of course if I were here for a long time I could recruit meat puppets to do my edit warring for me, but note that Bonusballs has been the one kicking off and sustaining this edit war personally, including three reverts himself today.

Thus I have to say that if I have reverted three times, I did not do it first, did it against false claims of consensus that has clearly not been reached, and did it to avoid blindingly clear biased presentation in the article at issue. No matter how much Aaron Swartz may be liked, it does his memory no justice to exonerate him by hiding the ball. CarthCarsen (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm rather disappointed that Carth has chosen to continue their personal attacks against me on this page. Regrettably Carth has simply been engaging in repeated edits to articles of significant current controversy - e.g. Aaron Swartz and others relating to the computer crime legal issues surrounding it. These edits have been repeatedly biased, accompanied by edit summaries that make this editor's non-neutral position very clear, while at the same time they claim to be defending WP:NPOV. Both I, and numerous other editors, have said otherwise, and urged Carth to discuss these issues fully on the Talk pages in question. Carth instead repeatedly just removes the referenced material with which they disagree, edit referenced quotes for the same reason, and insert OR and other synthesis commentary to somehow support or 'correct' the quoted statements by the notable figures so referenced. I reject any accusations of edit warring - I have added no material to these articles and my only activity has been in reverting this editor's more egregious transgressions, something which numerous other editors have also done, for the same reason. I must sadly come to the conclusion that Carth's constant attacks, ongoing wild accusations, and inability to WP:AGF are somewhat vexatious. Despite much discussion and many attempts to help, from both myself and others, Carth instead seems to choose to make this personal. I genuinely regret that they choose to do so. Bonusballs (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I have obviously been fixing the biased presentation of information, which certain persons simply cannot have when it comes to this particular person/subject. The facts are as stated; all are free to read the history and talk page of the article. Of course Bonusballs does not like it when I point out his/her edit warring, but edit warring it is. It began with Bonusballs. CarthCarsen (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Once again, unfortunately that does not fit the facts. Carth's first edits to Aaron Swartz began on January 15th with attempts to remove referenced quotes from Chris Hayes and Demand Progress. An IP editor restored them, to maintain balance. Carth removed the quotes again and instantly cried 'edit warring'. I then restored the quotes and Carth began accusing me of editing while signed out, the first in a list of wild and crazy accusations. Numerous other editors have also restored these quotes when Carth has repeatedly tried to remove them over the last four days. Discussion on the Talk page has agreed that removing quotes will not do. Carth has been encouraged to improve, but continues to remove, each and every time attacking the editors who disagree. Bonusballs (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
The truth is apparent to all readers who care to look. I would also note, re: "wild and crazy" shenanigans, that Bonusballs has accused me of being a sock puppet, in his/her long stream of deplorable tactics and falsehoods. Discussion in no way has agreed that removing misleading quotes without a proper setting "will not do"; in fact multiple users quickly agreed that the removals were proper, after which Bonusballs descended on the scene. False is false. CarthCarsen (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I stand by my actions. You have been repeatedly asked to respect the neutrality of the article, the sanctity of referenced quotes, and the consensus on the talk page. You have ignored them all. The most recent reversions of your edits and comments on the article talk page further underline that your actions are the problem here. Bonusballs (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
The more you post, the more you make my points for me. Again, the facts speak for themselves. CarthCarsen (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
As I said, I stand by my actions. You, I notice, are still continuing your campaign and even now are still continuing to revert against Aaron Swartz, now clearly and unambiguously well past the 3RR limit. I think that says it all. Bonusballs (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
No amount of attempts to exonerate Aaron Swartzy by skewing his article improve Wikipedia. CarthCarsen (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Action has been proposed (by other people than me) that would address all concerns: putting the quotes in context by explaining enough about the facts to enable readers not to be misled; and doing so on the page for the case itself, which was agreed already to be made. Action to allow Bonusballs and friends to inject a skewed picture into the article (even more than it already contains, anyway) without opposition is not in the best interests of neutrality. CarthCarsen (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Clear-cut edit-warring with evident intention to continue, and CC apparently doesn't get it, hence is still (unwittingly, perhaps) cruising for a bruising. Kindest thing would be for an admin to clarify the situation to CC, while holding back on the block hammer, for use only if CC then digs the hole deeper. I note CC's latest revert has also produced a cite error. Writegeist (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Clarification has already been offered on the user's talk page -- but it appears to have been ignored. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

If I am disciplined, so must Bonusballs be, for edit-warring first. In addition, my own edits fall within [3RR exemption] # 7: "Removal of... biased... contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons", which includes NPOV violations. The analysis is not merely whether three reverts have occurred. Of course I will continue to revert to eliminate clear bias. Allowing, with key placement, unopposed statements to the effect that Aaron Swartz did no more than try to check a few extra books out of a library, when he allegedly did not follow anything analogous to a checkout process but instead surreptitiously circumvented or violated both the terms of service of JSTOR and access control protocols in place, and downloaded 4.9 million documents or more (quite a lot more than a "few extra"), with the alleged intent to destroy JSTOR's ability to charge for its content-- to allow those unopposed statements is biased. The quote would be perfectly fine with enough supporting information to avoid misleading readers-- but as it is, it's a glaring "Exonerate Aaron Swartz" advertisement.

No, there is no question but that the inclusion of the quotes at issue began as clear NPOV violations, for which my removal was approved by other users-- you will note it was initially so bad that a previous editor indicated that one of the two skewed summations at issue was accurate. Presenting the Hayes and Demand Progress quote without any opposition on the factual points they attempt to make is heavily biased. CarthCarsen (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I see no significant NPOV issue here. The subject was embroiled in a complex legal controversy, and the two brief quotations reasonably illustrate his position. That other people believed otherwise is self-evident. Further, presumption of innocence in criminal matters is both US Law and Wikipedia policy. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 31 hours. Removal of sourced information *favorable* to Aaron Swartz is obviously not exempted from 3RR on BLP grounds. Carth was offered a chance to avoid sanctions by taking a break from this article, but would not do so. A claim of fixing POV violations does not grant an exception to 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm a little concerned by the fact that the block seems to have been imposed only three hours after EJ's offer appeared at CC's talk, and I can't see where CC said he would not take a break from the article (i.e. would not take up the offer), but perhaps I missed something. On the other hand, the block seems appropriately short, and the explanation clear enough. Writegeist (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Carth's response here appears to be declining my offer. He said, "The one starting and continuing the (days-long) edit war is Bonusballs". This does not sound like an acceptance to me. I waited to hear this response before taking action. EdJohnston (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
OIC. Thanks. Writegeist (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Darkness Shines reported by User:Mar4d (Result: no action)[edit]

Page: 2013 India–Pakistan border incident (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [78]

  • 1st revert: [79], removing POV tag added by me
  • 2nd revert: [80], removing CN tags added by me
  • 3rd revert: [81], removing sourced content added by me

I'd also like these reverts to be looked and whether or not the IP involved is a sock/proxy. Regardless, DS reverts here also constitute edit warring:


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [85]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [86]

Comments:Continous reverts with no effort to compromise or understand alternative points of view on talk page. The ongoing edit warring is highly disruptive for the article and also halting attempts at content dispute resolution on the talk page. I add sourced content, it gets, removed. I add tags, they get removed. He's made up to 6 reverts, all within one day, at the same article. Mar4d (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

  • I already told Mar I was not over 3RR, yet he files this. Diffs 1 & 2 are consecutive, hence 1RR. The reverts on the IP are not counted as reverting socks is an exemption, and those are proxy servers which I have already reportedhere I have but two reverts to the article, the lst one being due to Mar using sources which I had already explained to him on talk were not usable, one being a blog the other not even mentioning the incident the article is about. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. You should be aware at this point that sequential reverts with no edits in between count as one. The other edits are with a obvious sock using Opera mini proxy. Kuru (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

User:98.192.226.42 reported by User:McDoobAU93 (Result: 2 months)[edit]

Page: Pete (Disney) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.192.226.42 (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: [94]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [95]
Diff of attempt to invite anon IP to participate in discussion (made prior to revert 7 above): [96]

Comments:
This has apparently been a long-simmering edit war on this article, as registered users defend the current status of the article while anon IPs make changes without providing sources or edit summaries. Reviewing the edit history of this article points to two separate anon IPs, but both geo-locate to Maryland, USA, suggesting these may be one and the same person; the second, older IP hasn't edited since late 2012 but was not subjected to a block, so it's possible the editor no longer has access to that IP address. This needs to stop. --McDoobAU93 23:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – Two months. A very stable IP has been conducting the same war for months. This block should help, but semiprotection might be needed in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Ashrf1979 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Indefinitely blocked)[edit]

Page: Uyunid dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs);Ali bin al Mugrab Al Uyuni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs);Bahrain (historical region) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ashrf1979 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [97]

  • 1st revert: [98]
  • 2nd revert: [99]
  • 3rd revert: