Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive218

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Antinoos69 reported by User:DVdm (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Robert A. J. Gagnon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Antinoos69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [2]
  2. [3]
  3. [4]
  4. [5]
  5. [6]
  6. [7]
  7. [8] on 2-Jul-2013
  8. [9] on 3-Jul-2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: on 29-Jun by me and on 30 Jun by Cullen.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See article talk page Talk:Robert A. J. Gagnon#Association fallacy

Comments:
User was blocked before for edit warring on this same article. - DVdm (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

User relies frequently on novel interpretations of WP:Primary policy. Intervention to help him understand better than the talk page has done is needed, if he's willing to learn, no matter the outcome of this. jj (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
This editor rejects repeated attempts by several other experienced editors to explain various aspects of policy, insisting that he/she is right and that everyone else is wrong. The editor has stated a determination to continue adding disputed content against the clear consensus on the talk page. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
This apparent WP:SPA continues to add unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material about a WP:BLP (Robert A. J. Gagnon) in breach of consensus on the article talk page; refused a compromise solution; will not listen to other Wikipedians at all; is seemingly incapable of being WP:CIVIL; and in spite of having been blocked once is apparently going to keep re-adding the contentious material until Hell freezes over. I must confess to being at a loss here. -- 202.124.88.20 (talk) 12:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The editor continues edit warring #[10] Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Repeated wp:POINTY removals of content elsewhere: [11], [12], [13], [14]. Edit warring on two fronts, so to speak. - DVdm (talk) 09:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

and [15] jj (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC). Can we get this resolved?
He's been repeatedly told about this discussion on his talk page and refuses to participate so far. jj (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Result: Blocked one week. Second block for edit warring on the same BLP article. Antinoos69 removed my compromise offer from his user talk then kept on reverting. As one editor predicted above, Antinoos69 is 'apparently going to keep re-adding the contentious material until Hell freezes over'. EdJohnston (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Werieth reported by User:Evrik (Result: Both warned)[edit]

User being reported: Werieth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Page: Fællesrådet for Danmarks Drengespejdere (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Previous version reverted to: [16]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [17]
  2. [18]
  3. [19]
  4. [20]

Page: :Wikipedia:Non-free content review (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Previous version reverted to: [21] Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [22]
  2. [23]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Werieth&oldid=562406515

Comments:

Clarification: This is not a report about 3RR, but is about Edit Warring. The editor in question claims that the reversions made fall under Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#3RR_exemptions which says,

5. Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider reporting to the Wikipedia:Non-free content review noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

However, the pattern and nature of this editors actions fall outside this exception.

This is an extension of a long-running debate on the use of non-free images on Scouting pages. Currently, there are three discussions about Scouting related images on Wikipedia:Non-free content review. There is a pattern and practice of edit warring. In less than one hour, Werieth reverted me four times on two different pages. I stopped editing those pages to try and discuss it with Werieth, but the discussions seem to have gone nowhere..

Werieth has a habit of wikibullying. Many discussions get escalated. Early last month, I reported the same editor for edit warring on Scouting in Massachusetts and here. The response was to immeadiately report me and ask for a topic ban: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive799#Request for topic ban. I withdrew my previous report to show a willingness to work with Werieth.

Werieth also makes up policy: misquoting policy on non-admin closures, making up policy on image removal, not allowing similar discussions to be grouped, image removal policy again, etc.

I don't want Werieth blocked, but I want the combative behavior and 'making up policy' to end. --evrik (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you please READ THE POLICY? This user refuses to comply with NFCC. I am not making up policy, rather citing policies that evrik wishes didnt exist, and ignores hoping that they go away. Werieth (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
An example: Nothing in the policy says the images must be removed prior to the discussion being complete. This is Werieth's own interpretation. This contentious style of edting must stop. --evrik (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Wow way to ignore policy. Policy is to remove NFCC violations. Until this isnt a violation (per pending NFCR) it needs removed. Werieth (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The editors on the pages in question have all strived to meet every request you have set forth. They are editing in good faith, so Wikipedia:NFCCE#Enforcement should not apply. There is a disagreement on the interpretation of the policy. Please show me where on Wikipedia:Non-free content review or on Wikipedia:Non-free content it says that images displayed on an article page must be removed prior to the Non-free content review being complete when there is no consensus. --evrik (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
WP:NFG states that galleries cannot be used, see WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8, (there are exceptions, but this is rare) WP:NFCC states the burden of proof lies on those who wish to include non-free media and not those who seek removal. The NFCR at this point is where exceptions/review of usage happens. The default action with NFC just like BLP is to remove until the burden of inclusion has been met. Werieth (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes the editors are making good faith improvements, they have added sourced discussion about one logo. This is well within policy and I have said nothing about it. You however reverted re-inserting a gallery removing the sourced content, slapping everyone involved in the face. Werieth (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
At this point, I'd like to point out that in previous discussions we have debated this point to no resolution. I am willing to discuss the issue in a collaborative manner. I just want the edit warring to stop. Look at the history of this page in the last five days. I'm not the one who is editing against consensus. --evrik (talk)
Im always open to discussion, however it seems that your POV is screw NFCC and Ill use as many non-free files as I want If you are willing to comply with NFCC I will gladly discuss things with you. Werieth (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Let me get this straight, you make up policy, threaten people, retaliate aginst people, make snide remarks in the edit summaries - and I am somehow to blame? --evrik (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I dont make up policy, I do give valid warnings, attempt to resolve an issue with a user who refuses to understand NFCC, and finally remove an invalid warning by a POV pushing edit warrior who things NFCC should be deleted. Your complete lack of understanding and refusal to follow NFCC isnt my fault. Werieth (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Evrik, much as I'm sure you feel it appropriate to gain an exclusion for scouting pages from the dictums of WP:NFG, one is not forthcoming. Given that, WP:NFG holds sway here. If you want to change that, I invite you to start an RFC at WT:NFC to get it overturned. In the meantime, WP:NFG is the law of the land here. Seeking to force placement of the images and then attempting to get an exception isn't how things work. You are in the wrong. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • it's not about the policy, it's about the editors behavior and bullying. I have another example from Fællesrådet for Danmarks Drengespejdere on June 20:
  1. [25]
  2. [26]
  3. [27]
  4. [28]

Werieth is implementing the policy backwards. The NFCR page is a review page. It does not say images must be removed during the review. In fact, if this were the case, most if the images would be deleted before the review is complete. --evrik (talk)

Again you need to review policy, I dont want to say you are lying, but its almost to the point where AGF is worn out. NFC policy is to remove violations on sight. If you want to create an exception to policy its not done. You cannot claim that something is an exception just because you say it should be (otherwise policy is void). I may be a little heavy handed, however often something needs to be done to get the point across to users who consistently miss the point. NFC actually has an exception in 3RR, which tends to re-enforce policy which states that non-compliance should be made compliant. (in most cases this is removal) Werieth (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Please show me on WP:NFC where it says, "NFC policy is to remove violations on sight." This isn't about policy, but in the way you try to enforce it. This morning, I looked at the way the images were being added back in. Following that example. I added the other images back in, and within five minutes you reverted me again. --evrik (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
You did not follow the example, you added the files back without meeting WP:NFCC. The previous files that where added also included sourced discussion about the files, all you did was throw them back in with a {{expand section}} and nothing else. As I said on the review case, justification comes first, not after the fact. Werieth (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually typically images are left in situ while they are under discussion, so editors participating in that discussion can see the context in which they are being used (or misused or overused).
Something particularly to be avoided is for images to be removed because they are "under discussion", if they will then be automatically deleted within a week for not being in use on an article page.
There are some cases where images should be removed on sight, but those are fairly narrowly delimited at WP:CSD, issues which are truly unambiguous where no qualitative assessment of any kind is required. If there is something to discuss, then the issue cannot be said to be unambiguous, and those speedy (or semi-speedy) criteria should not be applied. Jheald (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I believe Werieth's actions fall outside the exemption. I don't want Werieth blocked, but I want the behavior to stop. --evrik (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Whereas edit warring against him, in direct opposition to WP:NFG, is somehow excusable on your part? --Hammersoft (talk) 00:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Werieth is clearly correct. Removing a de facto gallery of nonfree, undiscussed images is enforcement of basic NFCC policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Werieth is not correct, but even if correct choses to 'act like be a bully and an edit warrior. You can say that that a gallery of unfree images is against policy in NFG, but in that same policy there is an exception. The bigger point here is that instead of working collaboratively and allowing people to discuss the issue and work to a mutually acceptable solution, Werieth chooses to edit in a bullying fashion. I cited above an instance on the NCFR page where I was reveretd 2x because I tried to group similar discussions, and I also previously cited where I was reverted by Werieth because of a style issue. NCFR is not CSD, and yet that is how Werieth interprets it. --evrik (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
          • Please review WP:NPA. You said that there are exceptions, I agree with that. Where is the discussion requesting the exception for the article in question? Ill give you a hint, there isnt. Instead you decide that it should be exempt because you say so (that is not how policy works). Yes I reverted your grouping at NFCR because just like AfDs you dont combine them based of a commonality. Bulk AfDs tend to be a headache as instead of review each on a case by case basis, general brushes are used. (This does not work with NFCR) I am always willing to work collaborative example when the users are willing to follow policy. Your approach is wrong, if policy says only use 3, you start at 3 and argue for 3 or more. You should start at 0 and see if the article really needs the file or if its just there as filler. (90% of the time justification for additional images becomes more difficult with each addition.) You seem to have either not read, not understand, or have taken a stance to ignore the WP:NFC policy. Werieth (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
            • I fail to see a personal attack, but if I have personally attacked you, I apologize. I do stand by my assertion that you tend to try and bully people into submission. Please show me on WP:NFC where it says, "NFC policy is to remove violations on sight." This isn't about policy, but in the way you try to enforce it. --evrik (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Result: Both parties warned. If either of you adds or removes an image, or makes another image-related revert on this article before a definite decision about it has been made on one of the copyright boards you may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

EyeTruth reported by Gunbirddriver (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Battle of Kursk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: EyeTruth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Here is a version of the article prior to the multiple reverts: [29]

The editor in question contines to attempt to insert the term "blitzkrieg" into the article.

"Unternehmen Zitadelle (Operation Citadel) was to be a classic blitzkrieg... "

Here are the links to the talk page discussions: here and here.

A number of editors have been having difficulty on the Battle of Kursk page with editor EyeTruth. The chief problem has been reverting edits despite consensus of opinion from other editors being opposed to his edit change. The reverts can be seen here, here, here and then here on 25 June. And again here and here. His tone on the talk page is condescending and dismissive, and as a group we have had difficulty communicating simple guidelines such as what is MOS on wikilinks. I have notified EyeTruth that I am bringing these actions to the attention of the administrators. Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

You conveniently forgot to mention that it was on 11 June 2013, with THIS EDIT, that you began purging the article of the term "blitzkrieg" with absolutely no prior discussion. The term has always been there in the article for as long as possible, and fully supported by reliable sources (by reliable dudes). You came to your own conclusion that it doesn't belong in the article, and without any back up from any sources to dispute its inclusion in the article, you started cleansing the term off the artcle. There was not even any editor consensus to exclude the term from the article at that point. I added it back with THIS EDIT on 25 June. Later, you got a consistent support from two other editors, reverted it, and requested that I should discuss why I added it back. I added it back; and what did you expect me to say besides that I fixed a reliably cited content that has been tampered with. Ever since you've maintained that the support of three editors overrules the opinion of the various cited sources. But since the dispute over "blitzkrieg" has been submitted to the DRN, I will limit that discussion on here. EyeTruth (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
PS. There was a rather now obsolete discussion we had back in mid May (i.e. one month before your blitzkrieg-purging began). In that discussion after you pointed out that the many blitzkrieg usage in the article were misplaced, I simply concluded with: "I won't object to removing "Blitzkrieg" altogether, except that I wonder how difficult it would be to substitute the term without diverting the meaning of the passages from those of the various sources. If you think you can make it work, go for it. But if you mean wholly eliminating any passage in the article with "Blitzkrieg", then I doubt anyone will consider such a crusade acceptable." (Full convo is HERE). Either ways, you purged whole sentences and whole paragraphs of cited content just to cleanse the article of this "fiercely detested" term. EyeTruth (talk) 00:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
As for the accusation of misconduct, why do you always have to distort your complaints? Seriously why? You've reported this before, HERE. It got you nowhere. Granted, I'm thoroughly dismissive of your original research/ideas, but I never talk to you in a condescending way. I don't know if it is the jocular style of my written speech is what you consider "condescending". I don't think, "hmmmn", "lol", "omg", "omfg", or stuff like "are you a gardener? because you're very adept with cherry picking (and distorting info)", are condescending in any way as you've made them out to be a few times now. Other times you've tried to accuse me of being insultive by referring to you as "dude", even though I meant absolutely no harm with its usage; nevertheless, I apologized. Other times, I misworded my intentions, but I quickly clarified them once I notice it has been misunderstood, for example HERE. You, on the other hand, have been launching very bold remarks ever since you concluded that my say no more holds any value. Now, you decided to distort your complaint even more and report it again. OK granted, I fell short of the MOS on wikilinks and even questioned others trying to correct me, but I learned my lesson and openly concurred. I'm seriously getting tired of all these wave after wave of desperate allegations of misconduct, bombardment of speculative inferences (a.k.a original ideas) and accusations of not cooperating with those inferences. This is becoming one gigantic joke. If you keep this up, you might get what you want: to send me packing from this mutual sandbox of ours – the Battle of Kursk article. EyeTruth (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
As editors we have been challenged trying to figure out if the insulting nature of your comments had to do with a language difficulty, or was it just callous disregard for the other editors. The problem was pointed out to you by Sturmvogel 66 and myself on more than one occasion. Your response was to dismiss it, and to claim the other parties were taking things too personally. The attitude is one of a person who has no real interest in how he is being perceived. That means callous disregard is the driving principle in your responses, not failure to master the subtlies of English or poor insight into the subtext of what you had said. Okay. But you were a wuss when it came to dealing with a push back, so there you go. You are quick to offer statements that start with: "I don't think.." This is not the opening path to your understanding other people's perspective. They tell you how they percieve the manner in which you are commenting, and you respond by offering us all another look into what you think. That may be a marker of an underlying problem. Look at this non-sequitor: "Granted, I'm thoroughly dismissive of your original research/ideas, but I never talk to you in a condescending way." "I was thoroughly dismissive but I was not condescending." The statement itself fairly reeks of condescension. What is odd, is that given the fact that you are not a native English speaker, would it not seem highly likely that you are at a disadvantage and likely to be having language problems? Why just brow beat the other editors? Why would you not consider that there is a certain amount of awkwardness inherent in attempting to operate in a foreign language? It stikes me as indicative of a lack of insight and a reticence toward self-critique.Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
lol ok. You be the judge to decide who is a native speaker or not XD. I ain't got anymore time for this. BTW, I was speaking English when I was three years old or whenever it is ya all learn to speak it. I mean no harm. Cyaa. EyeTruth (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
As to the term "Blitzkrieg", no one is on a "Crusade" to eliminate the term, no one is "blitzkrieg-purging" wikipedia. But as to the Battle of Kursk, the term is non-desriptive and misleading, as I have told you many times before. Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Secondary sources don't think so. That's just your own opinion. EyeTruth (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Result: EyeTruth is warned that he may be blocked if he continues to restore the word 'blitzkrieg' to this article unless he has found consensus to do so. The discussion at Talk:Battle of Kursk#Use of term Blitzkrieg seems to be at least 3:1 against him. You have the option of asking an uninvolved admin to close that discussion and judge the consensus. There is currently a WP:DRN open and it is wise for EyeTruth to listen to whatever result is found there. EdJohnston (talk) 04:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Obviously, since there is a 3:1 editor vote against it, I haven't made any edits ever since the third editor joined the discussion. Besides, the blitzkrieg issue is primarily a content dispute and not the case of a user misconduct. So you can be rest assured I won't be editing anything until DRN settles it. EyeTruth (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

User:108.246.88.27 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and List of Warner Bros. films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 108.246.88.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [30] (Wizard of Oz)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [31]
  2. [32]
  3. [33]
  4. [34]
  5. [35]
  6. [36]
  7. [37]

Previous version reverted to: [38] (List of Warner Bros. films)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [39]
  2. [40]
  3. [41]
  4. [42]



Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]

Comments:

After an explanation was posted at Talk:List of Warner Bros. films the IP did stop reverting on List of Warner Bros. films, but the underlying problem persisted on The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) and many articles related to The Wizard of Oz. Because of this most of my efforts were focused on contacting the editor on their talk page: [45]. Either IP isn't aware of the messages I left or is ignoring them, but either way we are still left with the same problem of factually incorrect information being added to this group of articles. I think a block is the only option here, since the problematic behavior extends to many other articles. The only reason I have listed two articles is because this is were the 3RR violations occurred. Betty Logan (talk) 06:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Jc37 reported by User:BrownHairedGirl (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page: Category:People by city or town in Northern Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jc37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [46]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [47] 3 July 2013
  2. [48] 3 July 2013
  3. [49] 27 June 2013
  4. [50] 21 June 2013
  5. [51] 15 June 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [52]

In a nutshell, this is a strange case of a closing admin edit-warring to uphold a decision which he made subsequent to a CFD closure, and which which was neither mentioned in the closure nor supported by any participant in the CFD discussion. In the subsequent discussions, no other editor has supported the closer's actions.
Discussions at:

If this was simply a case of a contested closure, where discussion with the closing admin had not produced agreement, I would have gone to WP:DRV. However, in this odd case, the closing admin is edit-warring to uphold an edit which is unsupported by his own closing statement, which means that there is nothing for DRV to examine. So 3RR seems like the best place to go. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Comments:

  • I think it's Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale for now, but a block is in order if he reverts again. Pinging Jc37. King of ♠ 00:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Arzel reported by User:CartoonDiablo (Again) (Result: No Action)[edit]

Page: War on Women (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Arzel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 21:09, 25 June 2013 (edit summary: "Unreliable sources and duplicate information")
  2. 14:08, 2 July 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 561788616 by CartoonDiablo (talk)You are simply wrong on both accounts.")
  3. 13:42, 3 July 2013 (edit summary: "Stop adding in duplicate information and blogs.")
  4. 19:15, 4 July 2013 (edit summary: "revert edit warring of duplicate information.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

Arzel previously did the same thing not that long ago on this and the rape and controversy page. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

  • These edits are over too long a period to be considered a 3RR and its not quite clear enough to look at as a slow burning edit war. Spartaz Humbug! 04:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Boy2013 reported by User:Gobonobo (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

Page
Katie Hopkins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Boy2013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Jul 4 2013 4:18 PM "at the bottom of the article given for the reference where it states this person had three affairs with married men"
  2. Jul 4 2013 4:39 PM "Undid revision 562887766 by Gantlord (talk)"
  3. Jul 4 2013 5:08 PM ""
  4. Jul 4 2013 5:21 PM "Undid revision 562892555 by Blckmgc (talk)"
  5. Jul 4 2013 5:28 PM "Undid revision 562893236 by Blckmgc (talk)"
  6. Jul 4 2013 5:31 PM "Undid revision 562893913 by Gobonobo (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. Jul 4 2013 5:31 PM "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Katie Hopkins. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. Jul 4 2013 5:19 PM "blp concerns"
Comments:

Boy2013 is repeatedly inserting a violation of WP:BLP to the lead of Katie Hopkins over the objection of other editors. Gobōnobō + c 22:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Clear cut; was warned. I also removed the edit as it is a clear BLP problem. Kuru (talk) 22:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Darkness Shines reported by User:Scythian77 (Result: Scythian77 blocked 72 hours for edit warring to maintain BLP vios)[edit]

Page: Anti-Iranian sentiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:Darkness Shines


Previous version reverted to: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Iranian_sentiment&oldid=562600524]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [53]
  2. [54]
  3. [55]
  4. [56]

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

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

Comments:Just wanted to discuss removal of text. Not edit war. The Scythian 03:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

FFS. Removing BLP violations is an exemption, now try to explain why you reverted unsourced and BLP violating crap into that article 3 times. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Sopher99 reported by User:Pass a Method (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Template:Syrian civil war infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sopher99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [58] 24 June
  2. [59] 25 June
  3. [60] 30 June <-- Is a revert because it adds Kurds to rebel section against consensus
  4. [61] 1 July 12:27
  5. [62] 1 July 13:49
  6. [63] 1 July 14:13
  7. [64] 3 July 18:58 <-- Is probably a revert because it removes the neutral Kurd position against consensus
  8. [65] 4 July 10:42
  9. [66] 4 July 12:47
  10. [67] 4 July 17:45

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69]

Comments:

Admins may hesitate to look into such a complex case. To get attention to your complaint, please supply the date and time of each revert, and if possible the edit summary. In case one edit is changing multiple things, explain why you consider it to be a revert. The 3RR reporting tool here will allow you to easily collect dates, times and edit summaries. Remove from the list of edits anything which is not a revert. If the editor is reverting against consensus, say what you think the consensus is. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
The consensus is that no major Kurd group is with the rebels or loyalists (see here) Pass a Method talk 19:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Untrue. The discussion in the past never included the Azadi. I have plenty of sources, including the new york times, to back up my edition. Sopher99 (talk) 01:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

On a side note Ed, there is no one revert warning on the template page. The discussion of the template page was moved by User Funkmunk simply to make it easier for people to access (ie rather than going back an forth between pages). Sopher99 (talk) 01:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The redirect was made by Futuretrillionaire, I only copied the talk page over. FunkMonk (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. Everyone is warned that the template is subject to WP:ARBPIA. I will add an edit notice shortly. Sopher99 is warned that their conduct is unacceptable, and if it weren't for the extreme muddle that everyone has made of this, I would have blocked them. They are the only editor who has violated WP:3RR, but I am also taking into account that the first revert is being called "probably a revert", even though it clearly fits the policy definition of a revert. I also propose that you folk eliminate the redirect to the talk page so the article and the template each have their own talk pages. I haven't decided whether ARBPIA permits me to do that unilaterally and enforce it; I'll think on it and perhaps solicit input from other admins.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Rodneye9110 reported by User:Dawn Bard (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Morgellons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Rodneye9110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Jul 5 2013 6:57 AM "I just suggested that there are alternative and more up-to-date sources of information regarding this topic"
  2. Jul 5 2013 8:36 AM "Undid revision 562967779 by Zad68 (talk)"
  3. Jul 5 2013 10:13 AM "brings the state more inline with the wording of the actual source"
  4. Jul 5 2013 10:48 AM "Just changing the wording to match the actual wording of the CDC study"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[70]


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

This is a controversial article that is currently undergoing a dispute resolution process, and has attracted a spate of new SPA users in a couple of weeks. There is extensive discussion ongoing on the talk page. The user here was duly warned about edit warring. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the best place to start in settling this dispute is to actually publish in wikipedia the information from the CDC study on page 9 that states that the "material found was 83% protein...". From there the discussion can move forward because neither side should dispute that the study actually says this before it goes off into an unscientific rant that is unsupported by fact. That is why the followup study published in the Dove Press states that the body of the CDC's study was helpful but that their conclusion is not supported by the body of their work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodneye9110 (talkcontribs) 15:51, 5 July 2013‎Rodneye9110 (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Rodneye the best place for such a discussion is the talk page of the article, and the best time was before you edit warred. Please take it there, not here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours One of the four reverts is a borderline case; nevertheless, there is certainly edit warring behaviour being exhibited here, regardless of whether 3RR was technically violated. ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 21:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

User:76.87.31.178 reported by User:NatGertler (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: National Organization for Marriage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.87.31.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [71]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [72]
  2. [73]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [74]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:National_Organization_for_Marriage#Left-Wing.27s_Stranglehold_on_Wikipedia_Apparent_in_This_Article:_Biased_Language (and earlier Talk:National_Organization_for_Marriage#intro_edit_problems)

Comments:

User has been blocked twice in the past month for making this same edit here and here. Attempts to do away with the "opposition to same-sex marriage" phrasing as opening have been Talk page'd extensively. More lasting sanctions should be considered. Nat Gertler (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation There's no violation here, but there may be a long-term issue that needs resolving. I'd suggest taking this to ANI to achieve a decision with a wider consensus. ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 21:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Damascus road reported by User:Dominus Vobisdu (Result: Protected)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [75]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [76]
  2. [77]
  3. [78]
  4. [79]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [80]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [81]

Comments:

Actually, this is a continuation of a long, slowburn edit war. I've shown only the latest reverts. Attempts to explain the problems with the editor's proposed edits by another editor, User:Contaldo80, resulted in a hostile response with accusations of bad faith and bias. The response was similar to my edit warring notification and my attempt to engage him on the talk page. Based on the editor's talk page comments, this looks like a case of WP:NOTHERE. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I am certainly new to editing on WP and I have no interest in "edit wars"... I came to the article about Alcuin having read his Opera Omnia, as I explained to User:Contaldo80, and was surprised to see him (Alcuin) at the center of a debate about homosexuality. This was supported by one (1) reference by Boswell, whose studies have been repeatedly criticized and shown to be extremely fragile (see http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/bosrev-kennedy1.asp). I offered the counter reference previously mentioned (Robert G. Kennedy & Kenneth Kemp) and later added a quote from Alcuin himself on homosexuality in both Latin and English from the definitive reference work: his Opera Omnia (published by J.-P. Migne). None of this was my personal "opinion" and practically all of this was done with "talk". It seems to me, given the fact that User:Contaldo80 used highly offensive language and "edit wars" but has not been singled out by Dominus Vobisdu that the latter is driven by bias. I hope that I am wrong on this point. In any event, I am not interested in "edit wars" nor am I interested in ideological battles. However, Alcuin's own words should be heard if the topic of homosexuality is to be discussed in his context, and the title of the section should not seek controversy where none exists. Damascus road (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected for 4 days. It looks like both editors are editing in good faith here; I'd suggest pursuing dispute resolution to move the discussion forward. ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 21:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Toymaster1 reported by User:C6541 (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page
William Hung (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Toymaster1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from Jun 28 2013 3:41 PM to Jun 28 2013 3:43 PM
    1. Jun 28 2013 3:41 PM "Undid revision 562011583 by EditorE (talk)"
    2. Jun 28 2013 3:42 PM "Undid revision 562011777 by EditorE (talk)"
    3. Jun 28 2013 3:43 PM "Undid revision 562011583 by EditorE (talk)"
  2. Jun 28 2013 3:39 PM "Undid revision 562011303 by EditorE (talk)"
  3. Jun 28 2013 3:34 PM "Undid revision 561999650 by EditorE (talk)"
  4. Consecutive edits made from Jun 28 2013 1:50 PM to Jun 28 2013 1:54 PM
    1. Jun 28 2013 1:50 PM "Undid revision 561873685 by C6541 (talk)"
    2. Jun 28 2013 1:51 PM "Undid revision 561988462 by EditorE (talk)"
    3. Jun 28 2013 1:54 PM "Undid revision 561873174 by C6541 (talk)"
  5. Jun 27 2013 4:07 PM "Undid revision 561784942 by C6541 (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. Jun 27 2013 4:41 PM "Caution: Unconstructive editing on William Hung. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

User:TwoNyce reported by User:Don King's hair (Result: Both editors warned)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [82]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [83]--Don King's hair (talk) 10:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  2. [84]--Don King's hair (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  3. [85]--Don King's hair (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  4. [86]
  5. [87]
  6. [88]
  7. [89]
  8. [90]
  9. [91]
  10. [92]
  11. [93]
  12. [94]
  13. [95]
  14. [96]
  15. [97]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [98] [99]

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [100] [101]

Comments:
User:Don King's hair believes he can change the format that is used on every other boxing article. I'm only doing what is necessary cause article Timothy Bradley does not fall under the "Philosophy of User:Don King's hair". If anything Don King's hair needs to be reported for his vendetta against me. --2Nyce 13:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. The report is a bit stale, but because it's a slow edit war, I've warned both editors that they risk being blocked if they continue reverting. Also, @TwoNyce, you need to bring down your tone a few notches.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Maurice07 reported by User:Proudbolsahye (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page: Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Maurice07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. link
  2. link
  3. link
  4. link

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: linklink

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The issue has already been discussed in addition to this, some user have told him to discuss it first. Evidently he has read the edit-summary and avoided taking it to the talk page here, since he responded directly to another users edit-summary.

Comments: This user has been blocked many times for edit-warring and has been warned many more times. He is already under WP:ARBMAC sanctions and has violated his ban many times. Generally, he/she will delete the warnings he/she receives and continues edit-warring. It is my distinct personal observation that the user continues to edit-war regardless of how many times he's been warned or blocked.

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale. I agree the editor is a problem, but there's been no edits to the article by him for over 3 days, and he didn't breach WP:3RR even when he was reverting.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

User:99.172.172.40 reported by User:Dfw79 (Result: No Vio)[edit]

Page: Will Rogers World Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 99.172.172.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Will_Rogers_World_Airport&diff=558912520&oldid=558172192

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [102]
  2. [103]
  3. [104]
  4. [105]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:99.172.172.40

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Will_Rogers_World_Airport

Comments:
This user has a history of unconstructive edits and edit warring. The information being presented on the Will Rogers page specifically is inaccurate. I have attempted to provide the correct information twice now, since I am actually employed by the company, but this user keeps reverting them.


Dfw79 (talk) 04:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

  • No Vio. There are two separate sets of 2 reverts on different days. That's not a 3RR. Please see WP:DR for advice on how to progress your dispute. While you are at it, you should read WP:COI as well to understand how to contribute through a COI. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 18:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Montanabw reported by User:Shokatz (Result: Protected)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [106]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [107]
  2. [108]
  3. [109]
  4. [110]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [111]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I've contacted him or her on the personal talk page here [112]

Comments:

Hello. I made a minor edit at the Lipizzan article linking countries in the infobox description there. After which Montanabw appears saying he is reverting another user due to picture being too-light or something. I restore my links and the said user appears again reverting my changes saying "No need to link all those countries either" [113]. Now from my experience it is a common practice if you to link the country of origin in the infobox wheter it be a person, animal or whatever. This user appears again now claiming this is against WP:OVERLINK despite the fact nothing there is talking against this practice, nor is WP:OVERLINK "a rulebook" as the said user has described it. Now I have posted a warning template to his page that he has broken the 3RR rule to which he responded putting one on my page as well in retaliation [114]. I have also went to his talk page asking what exactly is the problem here to which he responded again by accused me of "edit-warring all over the place" [115]. He has also decide to hide my posts and the warning I posted at his talk page followed by the comments like: "Now go away..." and "Shokatz, get off my talk page and stay off." [116]. Now I don't know exactly is the problem here this person has but this is certainly not a model behavior. I've tried to reason with this person over my edit comments and on his talk page but he refuses and is extremely offensive so due such rude behavior I have decided to report it here.

Comments:

I am about to be offline for some time due to the USA holiday and may have extremely limited access to defend myself in this situation. I actually only did 2 reverts within 24 hours, as the first was an undo of two previous edits, not just Shokatz, AND it was outside the 24 hour limit anyway. Even if you find the 3rd close to 24 hours, it's the FOURTH revert that a 3RR penalty kicks in, and we aren't there. Further (If more defense is needed) My position is that this individual is engaging in a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when I explained that per WP:OVERLINK there is no need to wikilink major nations. This particular article has been relatively stable in content for a long time, but is a frequent magnet for kiddie edits, insertion of trivia, but also an occasional flare-up of edit disputes between people who edit articles on Eastern European nations versus Austria (There was actually a lawsuit in the EU between Slovenia and Austria over the breed name "Lipizzan") But in short: The first reversion on July 1 was intended to be to a swap of a photo, reverting the immediately preceding edit. I missed seeing Shokatz' edit. my edit summary makes it clear I was going after the photo (and assumed good faith). It was a simple good faith error. Next, Shokatz reverts me, pointing out my error. Therefore, I fixed the image and overlinking problem together, and thus this is NOT part of the 3RR concern). Nonetheless, Shokatz takes offense, I revert, citing policy (and yes, getting a bit testy), Shokatz says IDINTHEARTHAT, and I revert and remind him of BRD. At this point, Shokatz templates me, I'm seriously pissed by now and template him back, and he comes running here. I've been on WP over seven years and just did my 50,000th edit this week, have a totally clean block record and this ranks as the lamest thing for which I've ever been dragged to the AN board. Someone else explain WP:OVERLINK to this individual, please. Montanabw(talk) 20:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

  • I don't think there was technically a 3RR vio here, in that the four reverts were made in over 24 hours. Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected I've protected the page for three days in hopes of promoting discussion on the talk page. I'd like to emphasize that this is a minor issue, perhaps go to WP:3O for resolution? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Well that is highly disappointing as this user has shown obvious and blatant disrespect to me and the Wiki policies. Accusing me of "edit-warring all over the place" which is a fallacious statement. I have never been even reported in all two years on Wikipedia. Not to mention he or she reverted me citing nothing but claiming "it shouldn't be up there anyway" as if it's the user in question someone who decides what should or should not be in the article, then citing guidelines claiming it's a "rulebook". If you observe majority of similar articles (horse breeds included) it is a standard procedure to link the countries of association or origin in the infobox. WP:OVERLINK is certainly not a "rulebook" nor does it applies to linking countries of origins in the infobox. If the said user wishes to call upon the mentioned guideline then that user should read it carefully once again. This is certainly a minor issue but the reason why I got annoyed is the user's stance and rudeness, blatant reversion of something he/she didn't saw fit acting as if he/she is the sole proprietor of that article. Shokatz (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
      • And Shokatz seems completely oblivious to his own attitude and rudeness. My first edit was intended to reverse a different editor, and I made it clear with an apology at the time, only to be met with the very tone that I am being accused of here. (Quite tired of those who can dish it out, but can't take it) I don't start these, folks. Once again, quality control is not ownership, particularly when it involves a drive-by editor who has no interest in actually contributing to an article and only makes nation links that I know some bot or other drive-by editor is just going to go through and remove again anyway. (I personally don't give much more than a rat's ass if nations are wikilinked or not, I just know that it is frowned upon pr MOS in most cases and discouraged by the guidelines) As for edit-warring, I noted at the warnings on that user's talk page and checked contribs. It's clear Shokatz has an angle of interest, which of itself is not inherently a problem, except that it is an interest in Croatia, and partisans of the former Yugoslav republics have caused edit wars on the Lipizzan article in the past, so I was quite fast to act. Now I'm done, if Shokatz requires WP:LAST, that is fine. Montanabw(talk) 15:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
        • And still you continue with your ridiculous and fallacious accusations. If you haven't noticed my interest is actually in Croatia-related articles and I make no secret of it. I also have an interest in the history of the region and in general as can be seen from my edits. The Lipizzan article certainly falls into that category as well. Also your claim I have "contributed nothing" to the Lipizzan article is misleading and just wrong. I would like to remind you of a correction I made to that article, more specifically to the Foundation Lines section some time ago. The same change where you reverted me outright as well despite my explanation and rationale given in the talk page without even reviewing my edits and despite the facts they were directly supported by the existing references. Only after my intervention by quoting you the references you decided to accept it...but not without a twist [117] ... talking about the WP:LAST aren't we? May I remind you that you do not WP:OWN that article and that you are not some sort of guardian of it. I couldn't care less now about the links, it was a minor WP:Good faith edit based on the common practice of linking the countries of origin in the infobox...until you started this whole charade acting as if you are the master of the Universe. Shokatz (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Mark Arsten. Your comment above went up as I was writing the tl;dr response above. I am glad to discuss the issue at article talk or elsewhere. Montanabw(talk) 20:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Looks like the person submitting this was just as guilty, so prot is a good solution here. PumpkinSky talk 21:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Montanabw is female, by the way. Flyer22 (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

User:97.91.198.94 reported by User:75.111.63.85 (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page: List of Jake and the Never Land Pirates episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 97.91.198.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jake_and_the_Never_Land_Pirates_episodes&oldid=563134621

Comments:
Repeatedly adding fake info on the page, even after talking to them.

[118] [119] [120]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:97.91.198.94

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:97.91.198.94#3RR

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Mrm7171 reported by User:Ronz (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Occupational health psychology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mrm7171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 00:24, 7 July 2013 (edit summary: "I asked you to discuss. Left message on your talk page. You ignored it. You aree trying to create an edit war and not discuss good faith addition, simply deleting it!")
  2. 02:50, 7 July 2013 (edit summary: "re-wrote my good faith entry after vandal deletion")
  3. 14:44, 7 July 2013 (edit summary: "Discussed this issue and consensus reached today to leave in after other editors trimmed it. Am working oin the best source! Stop engaging in edit war and undoing my additition.")
  4. 14:58, 7 July 2013 (edit summary: "consensus to leave in today with two experienced editors while best source is added. Leave it with me. Stop undoing my addition. You refuse to discuss iss246! Discuss on my talk page. Discuss. Totally refusing to discuss. one sided edit war!")


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 04:28, 7 July 2013

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Occupational_health_psychology#Relationship_to_Industrial_and_Organizational_Psychology

Comments:

Looks like this is part of a larger dispute between Mrm7171 and Iss246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) that goes back to at least May and has included a previous block for edit-warring of Mrm7171, a sock puppet investigation of Psyc12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), and page protection.

I've warned Iss246 as well for his continued reverts.

In addition to myself, Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and EBY3221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) have both stepped in to help resolve this dispute.

The article talk page is a mess. These inexperienced editors need further help from experienced editors to make some progress with the larger dispute(s) here. --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of one week. It's not just the continuing reversions but also the content, which, as has been pointed out, is not even close to encyclopedic (sourcing issues aside). And then there are the walls of text on the user's talk page and on the article talk page. I'll leave it to you (Ronz) and the other experienced editors to clean up the content issues. I'm dealing only with the conduct.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Wearenotgermans reported by User:Surtsicna (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: House of Glücksburg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wearenotgermans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [121]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [122]
  2. [123]
  3. [124]
  4. [125]
  5. [126]
  6. [127]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [128]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [129]

Comments:
The user, curiously named WeAreNotGermans, is obviously pushing an agenda here, and has not shown any intention to contribute to the project. His or her only reason for being here is anti-German sentiment. Surtsicna (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. In the future, Surtsicna, it would be better to warn the editor of edit warring on their talk page rather than on the article talk page. However, the 3RR violation was blatant as was the agenda.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I thought it would be enough to start a discussion and to ask her or him to stop edit-warring in an edit summary, but I now realize I should have gone to her or his talk page as well. Thanks for your help! Surtsicna (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Gwillhickers reported by User:Trekphiler (Result: No action)[edit]

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

Adding trivia, then restoring it. Further, accusing me of edit warring for removing it. By appearances, he dislikes having his adds deleted. [130] [131] [132]

Have I tried to resolve it? No. I'm not the one restoring this junk. Go ahead & block me. I expect you will no matter what I say. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 06:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. I don't know who, if anyone, may be blocked, but you could certainly have done a better job in filing this report. There are instructions on how to do it, and if you'll pardon the pun, you've been around the block. In addition to the report being malformed, you failed to notify Gwillhickers, which I've done for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice Bb23. As no one has yet to exceed the 3RR with a fourth revert I don't understand why we are here now. In any case, this is not the first time user Trekphiler has gone into the USS Monitor page and has made repeated deletions without any discussion. This user went through a similar approach to editing just a few days ago.
  1. Diff
  2. Diff
  3. Diff
Aside from correcting comma usage, which is welcomed, most of his edits were made for highly opinionated reasons (insisting on using the general term "flooding" instead of the more definitive term "rapidly rising waters") This user's deletions/reverts were not anything that involved correcting factual errors, lack of citations and other important items. When matters were explained, he ignored them and continued to make the same opinionated reverts regardless, often leaving less than friendly comments in edit history, the likes of which Trekphiler has demonstrated above. "...junk, go ahead and block me."
During this second episode Trekphiler continued to make needless edits, deleting well sourced historical content, (all the while he was using the mark-up page to leave hidden comments containing personal opinion and questions that are normally posted on the talk page). Definitive example: One of Trekphiler's edits involved the deletion of a sentence that mentioned the crew's condition after they had just returned from a two day (world famous) battle and that they were exhausted and were given a meal -- a historical fact supported by RS's to which this user typically has just referred to as "junk". Here are the Diff's of Trekphiler's second episode of undiscussed deletions/reverts: