Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive220

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:LesLein reported by User:UseTheCommandLine (Result: Blocked)[edit]

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

At New Deal, this user has been engaged for months in a concerted effort to deflect article consensus. Although he has not run afoul of 3RR in the last few edits, his behavior appears to me to be characteristic of IDHT, slow edit warring, and POVPUSH.

I was involved as a WP:FRINGE/N volunteer in a dispute he brought there, in which he was asking if characterizing the New Deal as proto-fascist was a fringe view. There is extensive discussion there.

Other editors at New Deal have sought other intervention, including by ANI. Warnings have been placed on his Talk page previously by myself ( please see his response as well), and it appears that he has engaged in similarly disruptive editing on other pages (see also deleted talk page content).

After the FRINGE/N discussion I became involved in the dispute on the page.


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  • recent:
  1. [1]
  2. [2]
  • non-3RR but, to my mind, clearly edit warring. These are the only edits he made during this time period, before discussing it (further) on the talk page
  1. [3]
  2. [4]
  3. [5]
  4. [6]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I have not been involved in the discussion for some time, though there is extensive discussion on the talk page between LesLein and other page watchers like Pass3456 and Rjensen

Comments:

Although this might be characterized, as Carrite did, as a content dispute, I think this is a fairly clear example of a civil POVPUSHer. slow edit warring, lots of TL;DR posts, and lots of IDHT. Notably, LesLein was the one who solicited help on WP:FRINGE/N and then ignored it entirely, suggesting WP:FORUMSHOP.

I don't know whether the other editors have sought additional outside input (there is some indication they may have gone to WP:3O or perhaps others), and if not, why not. I think this editor clearly could use some help in figuring out what the community standards are and how to work within them. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 11:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

This complaint should be dismissed with a warning against UseTheCommandLine because that editor makes many errors of omission and commission. They start with the second sentence. It reads: "Although he has not run afoul of 3RR in the last few edits, his behavior appears to me to be characteristic of IDHT, slow edit warring, and POVPUSH." "Last few edits" implies I violated 3RR recently. I violated it once late last year or early this year, the first time I heard of the rule. I must have made over 100 edits since then, not a "few."

UseTheCommandLine's next sentence reads: "I was involved as a WP:FRINGE/N volunteer in a dispute he brought there, in which he was asking if characterizing the New Deal as proto-fascist was a fringe view. There is extensive discussion there." Pass3456 brought the dispute to the noticeboard, not me. It is absurd to say that I would go to a noticeboard to accuse myself of pushing a fringe theory. Incidentally, I never said the New Deal was proto-fascist.

UseTheCommandLine resolved the noticeboard, finding that I was pushing a fringe theory. Shortly after that, Pass3456 went to the Admin noticeboard. Editor Drmies wrote about UseTheCommandLine's decision: " I'm going to strike my earlier comment, just having reread that FRINGE discussion, which was marked "resolved" by an editor who was seriously involved in that discussion." Indeed UseTheCommandLine edited a paragraph others criticized for being fringe.

The Admin 789 noticeboard was never formally resolved, but the consensus was overwhelming that my edits were not fringe. UseTheCommand line was wrong, explaining why I take his/her advice with a grain of salt.

Next: "After the FRINGE/N discussion I became involved in the dispute on the page."

I'm not clear which page this refers to, the fringe discussion article or the New Deal article. If it is the latter, UseTheCommandLine is wrong. This editor made New Deal article edits on March 6 and 7, which was during the fringe discussion (February 20 through March 12).

"Notably, LesLein was the one who solicited help on WP:FRINGE/N and then ignored it entirely, suggesting WP:FORUMSHOP." Again, it was Pass3456 who went to two noticeboards; I never did. UseTheCommandLine should know better. This editor is being sloppy and negligent in presenting facts. The reason my edits are often long is because I have to document these types of errors. I move slowly because I don't have a lot of time to dedicate to Wiki. Also, I am the accused to I think that I am entitled to make long responses.

My edits since the March noticeboard discussions were intended to help reach a compromise. My edits on the New Deal and communism lead to a substantial improvement. The fascism subarticle is almost completely onesided. I am trying to establish a NPOV, which "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Take the difference UseTheCommandLine links to regarding the Supreme Court striking down key New Deal legislation. There is a block quote from FDR where he denies violating rights. I added material indicating that the Supreme Court ruled that the NRA violated the last amendment in the Bill of Rights. To me, NPOV means that editors must permit Roosevelt's claim to be challenged. It is a fact that FDR prosecuted and jailed a few people under a law later found to be unconstitutional.

Wiki's policy is "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." I think the real problem is a case of information suppression. I have been considering going to the NPOV noticeboard about this. Editors in the subarticle go to great lengths to exclude information they don't like. They make up rules (go to the New Deal talk page and search for quotations), engage in wikihounding, behave inconsistently, make personal attacks, and provide inaccurate information. I was planning on inserting a "Failed Verification" tag because some current information contradicts the citation.

As far back as last January I went to Rjensen’s talk page to ask a question. Rjensen replied in part, “No scholar says Italy had any impact whatever on any New Deal programs.” Rjensen went on to say that “FDR never praised Mussolini and often used him as an evil example 'we do not like Mussolini the dictator’ he said in 1926, although he said that should not be a reason to oppose a debt deal with Italy."

According to John Diggins and James Q. Whitman (both prominent scholars), FDR told a White House correspondent in 1933 “that I am keeping in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman.” FDR later wrote to Ambassador Breckinridge in Italy “There seems to be no question that [Mussolini] is really interested in what we are doing and I am much interested and deeply impressed by what he has accomplished and by and his evidenced honest purpose of restoring Italy.” According to Diggins, “even as late as 1939 … Roosevelt could still look back on Il Duce’s regime with some sympathy.” One of the New Deal’s first initiatives was to set up a commission to study fascist de-urbanization programs.

I can cite plenty of similar examples. I think fair-minded people can understand why I often ignore this type of information from other editors.

I'm sorry for the length, but UseTheCommandLine makes too many errors to ignore. I believe that this editor's behavior here is very inappropriate. Thank you. LesLein (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Update -- Regarding the FDR block quote in the New Deal article, FDR stated privately that some of his economic policies were based on policies of Germany, Italy, and Russia. Editors won't permit me to include FDR's own words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LesLein (talkcontribs) 14:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Postscript: While I recalled our interaction on WP:FRINGE/N as being initiated by LesLein, I was wrong. The discussion there was long, and much of it was just between me and him, after others had stopped chiming in, and I suppose this is why I recalled it the way I did. I withdraw, and apologize for, my assertion of FORUMSHOP, though my other comments stand. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 20:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Joefromrandb reported by User:Jgeddis (Result: No violation)[edit]

Discussion about content belongs on the article talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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


Previous version reverted to: [8]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [9]
  2. [10]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12]

Comments:

There is an active discussion on the Article's talk page which joe ignored and has reverted twice source citations that have been in the article for over a month without addressing the root issue. After noticing a long history of edit waring and civility admin blocks against Joefromrandb it seems pretty clear where this will end up. I request the page be restored and protected so the sources can be corrected and the page improved and that Joe be blocked again for is bad faith edits and reverts. It may very well be possible he's associated with or is the anonymous editor that was previously engaged in the same edit war as a sockpuppet. Instead of engaging myself in an edit war I'm kicking this over to you guys.Jgeddis (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

  • (Non-administrator comment) WP:BRD is clear on how this situation works - you're bold, if someone else reverts, you may not simply re-add, ever ... you begin to discuss immediately to obtain WP:CONSENSUS. Jgeddis, you appear to have made some changes that are not accepted by the community yet. Indeed, you appear to be removing or tagging certain types of information. Making "sock" allegations without filing an WP:SPI is uncivil, and there's certainly insufficient requirement to protect the page if ALL parties follow WP:BRD appropriately. I'll also warn you about forum-shopping between here and ANI E,S,&L 11:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
    • While this user clearly needs to get a clue, his original ANi complaint was against a different user (unless anyone actually thinks I am the IP in question, which should be fairly easy to debunk). Joefromrandb (talk) 11:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. User:Jgeddis, your comments are a personal attack against Joefromandb, for which you have no evidence. Don't do it again.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
bbb23 with regards to your comments:
  1. The forum shopping allegation is baseless. If you look at the two complaints they are two separate complaints as even Joefromandb pointed out.
  2. With regards to the sockpuppetry allegation being a "personal attack" Wikipedians are expected to assume good faith. I am a casual editor who doesn't share the extensive history of blocks and edit wars Joefromandb comes with. To assume I should know every nuanced procedure and was intentionally trying to subvert them does not assume good faith editing on my part.
  3. With regards to the actual point of the complaint, it wasn't addressed. My tags on the sources have been there for a long time. Indeed the entire page has been tagged as requiring enormous amounts of work. I simply went through source by source and pointed out the individual issues in good faith. Further, since i was concerned it could warrant discussion i posted a new thread on the page's talk page after making the minor edit. Joefromandb came by apparently "coincidentally" immediately after the previous person exhibiting the exact same behaviour of reverting without discussion even though a forum for that discussion was provided.
  4. instead of engaging in an edit war myself I immediately brought it to the administrators board to deal with as we are expected to do.Jgeddis (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Jgeddis, your comments are way off the mark. The article was closed as keep about a year ago. There were only a few edits after that in 2012. Then there was a large break between September 2012 and March 2013 with no edits. That was followed by just a few edits until you came along in July and added all the tags. They were removed by an IP. You reinstated them, and Joe removed them. In other words, there was one revert by Joe, one revert by the IP, and one by you. Nonetheless, you accuse Joe of edit warring, as well as bringing a somewhat incoherent report to ANI. I should also add that before the AfD discussion you made a major change to the article that was also reverted, by a different editor entirely. I don't see that you've established any good faith. If you don't feel you know Wikipedia's policies and guidelines well enough, then don't create reports at administrator noticeboards until you're more sure of your ground. Instead, you might pay more attention to experienced users and discuss things with them. You can even seek administrative help if you have a question rather than toss around accusations.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
bbb23 I'm not sure what relevance most of this response has to the core issue. What is the actual issue with tagging a self published source as self published? If it is in fact a self published source should it not be tagged as such? Indeed, I brought it here instead of engaging in an edit war. I'm not sure what the issue is with that either. I did seek administrator help. Thanks again.Jgeddis (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Aikatastrophe and User:180.191.45.91 reported by User:149.241.16.149 (Result: Both blocked)[edit]

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


Pre edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katia_Elizarova&oldid=565332763

Current Version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katia_Elizarova&oldid=566972201

Comments: The User Aikatastrophe seems to be set on removing substantiated historical data on the subject of the article. I have porposed an acceptable revision that takes the mean ground - as visible in the current version link above. But the user seems set on basing all content on a single speculative piece. In accordance with Wiki regs it is appropriate to summarise and not speculate. The latest version as above does so, yet the user is overtly concerned with parties that have a vested interest in removing information based on their past activities on Wiki. Please block their editing. User then attempted to disguise identity by signing out and using 180.191.45.91 to mask edits. Please block that also.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.241.16.149 (talkcontribs)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Breenhill reported by User:Sean.hoyland (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: SIL International (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Wendy Wright (activist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Breenhill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: see below

Diffs of the user's reverts: see below

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Editor has been warned about disruptive edit multiple times, see User talk:Breenhill

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] I'm uninvolved. I noticed the editor because I have the Wendy Wright (activist) article watchlisted.

Comments:
The editor has been edit warring at a number of articles since they registered on 2013-07-13. Diffs probably aren't necessary since the behavior is clear from Special:Contributions/Breenhill. They have received multiple warnings (see User talk:Breenhill), none of which have had an effect on their behavior. They have not responded to any of the warnings or made any attempt to open a discussion on a talk page. Their edits have focused on repeatedly removing reliably sourced content from SIL International (11 times) and Wendy Wright (activist) (9 times) (and at Focus on the Family among others). The apparently agenda driven nature of their edits suggest that there is a conflict between their personal beliefs and Wikipedia's rules. There's no evidence that they are willing or able to stop edit warring. WP:NOTHERE probably applies but something needs to be done to stop them edit warring. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Doglicker9912 reported by User:Masem (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Valve Corporation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Doglicker9912 (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. 17:32, 3 August 2013 (edit summary: "Valve refers to their game as an ARTS not moba.")
  2. 17:35, 3 August 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 567010433 by Ferret (talk)")
  3. 18:22, 3 August 2013 (edit summary: "The same way that Neil Degrasse Tyson has a say in his religeous views, Valve has a say in the genre of their ARTS game.")
  4. 18:46, 3 August 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 567017292 by Masem (talk)")
  5. 18:47, 3 August 2013 (edit summary: "The same way that Neil deGrasse Tyson has a say in his religious views as displayed on wikipedia, Valve has a say in the genre name of their ARTS game, which not only pioneered the genre, but is still the bases of many games within the genre.")
  • Diff of warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [13]

Comments:

Behavior is similar to an account User:ARTSisGenreDuh that was blocked about a month ago for the same changes but I can't otherwise point out the possibility of a sock. --MASEM (t) 19:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Can't say whether it's a sock. Favonian (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Poopajohn reported by User:Dawnseeker2000 (Result: 36h)[edit]

Page
Traverse City, Michigan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Poopajohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 14:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC) ""
  2. 14:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC) ""
  3. 15:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC) ""
  4. 16:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC) ""
  5. 16:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC) ""
  6. 17:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC) ""
  7. 22:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 17:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Traverse City, Michigan. using TW"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

No talk page discussion took place. Six editors reversed this user's edits, including myself (DS2K)

Comments:
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 36 hours. Materialscientist (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Nitrobutane reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Both blocked )[edit]

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

Five times over the last few days Nitrobutane has removed the qualifier "incompressible" from "hydraulic fluid" in the lead of hydraulic accumulator.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [14]
  2. [15]
  3. [16]
  4. [17]
  5. [18]

The gas-pressurised hydraulic accumulator is a well-known engineering device that uses energy stored in a compressible gas to pressurise an incompressible liquid. It is crucial to the need for them, and their operation, that liquids are effectively incompressible (the need) and that gases are compressible (the means of conveniently storing energy). Nitrobutane appears to not comprehend this, although it's unclear whether they are confused about compressibility only applying to the gas ("the next paragraph mentions copmpressed gas accumulators - how is that 'incompressible'?") or use of fluid (" it's wrong to say 'incompressible fluid' because that generalization simply does not apply") A hydraulic accumulator is used with liquids, a pneumatic accumulator would be used with gases.

I've reverted. I've commented in the edit comments. I've expanded the article with a footnote. They've posted to my talk (User_talk:Andy_Dingley#Hydraulic_accumulator_.E2.80.93_Did_you_just), of no relevance to the issue, and accused me of "pretending" to be an admin. If they don't understand the technical aspects this far, and they still persist in removing a crucial term from the article despite, we're getting into WP:COMPETENCE. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


he is creating a false separation of 'need' and 'means'. slight compression of hydraulic fluid in the accumulator could store part of the energy, both satisfying part of 'the need' and providing part of 'the means of conveniently storing energy'

there's no need for the phrase 'non-compressible hydraulic fluid', because incompressibility is not vital for this device's operation. if a fluid is suitable to be used in the system that the accumulator stores power for, that's that. nothing about the accumulator requires the fluid be incompressible

and now he has the temerity to bait me with allusions to WP:COMPETENCE

he is the one who started reverting my edits, then without offering to discuss on the article's talk page HE posted on my talk page using the 'edit war warning' Template:Uw-ewsoft (as Wikipedia specifically warns against [19]) - as if he's qualified to talk about the issue like a third party/admin.

then when I raise it on his talk he avoids the issue and starts trying to provoke me (all he said is 'please learn the difference between hydraulic and pneumatic'). and now has the cheek to say it's 'of no relevance to the issue'.

he removed it from my talk page when I complained and now it's gone - Nitrobutane (talk) 03:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. The history of the article shows both editors willing to engage in edit warring to enforce their own side of the dispute. --Jayron32 03:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Chipmunkdavis reported by User:204.11.133.214 (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: Serama (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chipmunkdavis (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. deletes properly cited description of picture.
  2. [diff]
  3. [diff]
  4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. Neither editor shows evidence of edit warring. No attempt has been made by the filer to discuss the matter. Please take up the matter at the article talk page, and invite the other party to a civil discussion. -- Jayron32 04:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

User:ChipmunkDavis reported by User:204.11.133.214 (Result: Malformed and already acted on above)[edit]

Page: Serama (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Chipmunkdavis: [[User:|]] ([[User talk:|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. repeatedly removes accurate information on picture site for personal reasons and says a well used wiki source is invalid.
  2. [diff]
  3. [diff]
  4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:
Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined. It was already decided in the report above this that there was no violation by either party. Plus, the report is malformed. If you have something new to say, add it to the above report, don't create a new one.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not a Wiki expert. However, the issue is real. The reverts continued since the first report, hence another report (not sure how this all works). In essence, one group tries to continually block accurate, cited information and I am looking for help to get that to cease. The revisionist history being continually reverted to, blocking of information of others who have been succesful, should not stand if we are going for accuracy. Citing such thing as the owner of a bird pictured should not result in edit wars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.11.133.214 (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Based on the time stamp of Jayron's determination, you're right. So, would you like me to block you for edit warring? You've reverted twice more since and Chipmunkdavis has reverted once. Additionally, although I don't usually get into the content issues, the source you are using is not a reliable source (I don't care if it's used elsewhere on Wikipedia, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS), and that one image is the only one with a caption - it stands out like a sore thumb. I do agree with you that it's very odd to object to the website as a reliable source and use it twice in the same article. Nontheless, stop warring and go back to the talk page and work it out. I've also notified CMD (you were supposed to do that) of this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification Bbb23. I didn't use the source elsewhere in the article, and haven't examined it there. Irrelevant to its use elsewhere, it is being used here to promote a point of view. This is sadly an oddly ongoing problem, the IP here is a new incarnation of an indefinitely blocked user/IP(s). CMD (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Walkerarea reported by User:Dawnseeker2000 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
WQJJ-LP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Walkerarea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 19:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 567148780 by Smalljim (talk)"
  2. 19:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 567149150 by Dawnseeker2000 (talk)"
  3. 19:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 567149693 by Dawnseeker2000 (talk)"
  4. 19:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 567150047 by Smalljim (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 19:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. using TW"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

No talk page discussion took place.

Comments:
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of one week. Probably should have been longer.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Werieth reported by User:Aspects (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: I Love Rock 'n' Roll (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Werieth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: 16:33, 2 August 2013

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 11:21, 3 August 2013
  2. 21:09, 3 August 2013
  3. 21:50, 3 August 2013
  4. 22:33, 4 August 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR 1st warning: 22:05, 3 August 2013
Diff of edit warring / 3RR 1st removal: 22:08, 3 August 2013
Diff of edit warring / 3RR 2nd warning (me not noticing the first warning and its removal): 03:23, 4 August 2013
Diff of edit warring / 3RR 1st removal: 03:34, 4 August 2013

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Werieth#Notable cover version single covers that pass WP:NFCC

Comments: Werieth has been edit warring to remove single covers of notable cover versions on song article claiming that they violate WP:NFC across numerous articles. Werieth has reverted four different editors that came across the image deletions independently. After being warned in the discussion by three editors that this edit warring would not exempt him from 3RR, including KWW who stated "The WP:NFCC cover for WP:3RR is not sufficiently clear in this case to give you much protection. I can assure you that I wouldn't unblock you on those grounds if another admin blocked you." The fact that there is a discussion on his talk page about the image deletions and his reverting four different editors show that his edits are not exempt per WP:3RRNO because the images are not unquestionably violating WP:NFCC. After being warned, Werieth did not make another reversion that would total three reversion in a 24 hour time span, but he seems to be gaming the system by making another reversion just outside of the 24 hour time span by 43 minutes. Aspects (talk) 01:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow, Please review NFC. The files in question do not meet policy, the user who added them back in this case is un-aware of the issues. I have asked you for policy discussions that support your point and you have provided nothing to support your claims. I however have linked multiple discussions that support my position. Werieth (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I have also suggested you take your point to WT:NFC if you think single covers should be treated special in regards to album covers. Werieth (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. I've locked the article for three days while you folk work out the copyright issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

User:EyeTruth reported by User:Gunbirddriver (Result: Blocked)[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: [20]

This is a repeat of a previous complaint. The editor in question continues 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:

The editor continues to revert edits in an effort to insert text into the article which the other editors involved do not believe is helpful and do not agree with. The initial reverts can be seen

He ignores contrary opinion and seemingly fails to understand what the others are saying. After being referred to the adminstrators for tendinitous editing he then opened a DRN on the matter, presumptively to resolve the conflict, but throughout he did not appear to be open to any opinion other than his own. The DRN concluded and no consensus was reached. Immediately following the close of the DRN and without a consensus opinion on the articles talk page or in the DRN supporting his text, he has inserted the term again

and

He stated “The DRN closed without a resolution. Perhaps we can reach a decision through editing??” and added the term back in. His “attempt to reach a decision” resulted in a number of reverts, and now the page has his wording in place again. He claims that the DRN discussion ended with most editors agreeing with him, but this was not the case. Editor Hasteur stated "it would be best to leave the term Blitzkrieg out of the Battle of Kursk article." Editor Magus732 believed blitzkrieg was the mindset going in, but that a blitzkrieg-style battle proved to be impossible once the Soviet tank commanders started their effective counterattacks. That is not accurate, but that is what he said. A third editor, Someone not using his real name, demonstrated that sources are available that would support either position. Binkersnet, Sturmvogel 66 and myself still feel the term does not improve the understanding of the battle and so we oppose use of the term, and two other editors, Diannaa and Herostratus, have commented on the talk page that they oppose. None of these editors have stated that they have changed their opinion. To this point it is still only EyeTruth who has expressed an opinion on the articles talk page that the term should be included.

Again, his tone on the talk page is condescending and dismissive. In the past we have had difficulty communicating simple guidelines such as what is MOS on wikilinks. His previous referral resulted in a warning issued by administrator User:EdJohnston here and here, though the warning has subsequently been removed from User:EyeTruth’s talk page. He was told: “To avoid admin action, please don't restore that word until such time as you have consensus.” He did not achieve a consensus, but has added the term again, and reported me for administrative action here when I attempted to remove it. Of course, it was EyeTruth that was changing the articles wording, and I was following Bold Edit/Revert/Discuss. I am not sure if he understands that. At this point I believe he should be blocked from the page Battle of Kursk. I have notified EyeTruth that I am bringing these actions to the attention of the administrators. Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

User:109.156.190.242 reported by User:Rushton2010 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: The Smiler (roller coaster) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 109.156.190.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [21]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [22]
  2. [23]
  3. [24]
  4. [25]

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

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

Comments: The user has been vandalising the page for the Smiler Rollercoaster, changing the rollercoaster's name to "The Failer". When the vandalism is undone, despite warnings, he repeatedly reverts to the vandalised version. --Rushton2010 (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for vandalism by User:Mfield.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Tim Zukas reported by Dfw79 (talk) (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Toledo Express Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 16:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

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

  1. 23:51, 25 July 2013 (edit summary: "")
  2. 20:45, 30 July 2013 (edit summary: "delete some of the useless verbiage")
  3. 01:31, 2 August 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 566779338 -- what's to discuss? The verbiage is all useless-- if you think some isn't, show an example.")
  4. 16:06, 2 August 2013 (edit summary: "usual pruning")
  5. 17:37, 2 August 2013 (edit summary: "One of these years you ought to try to give an example where your verbiage is needed)")

User has been warned.

Talk:Toledo Express Airport - Have attempted to engage them in discussion before making changes, but user refuses to discuss and immediately reverts items back - even after additional updates have been done.

Comments:
User appears to simply go around from page to page deleting content that they consider to be too detailed or wordy. Have attempted to engage in discussion but they refuse to stop editing. Today made some changes to clean up the wording on the article, but the user again returned and deleted even more content from the page that is detailed and specific to the article. Dfw79 (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Updated as user has made another reversion today eliminating key/specific information that has been sourced and added to the page. Dfw79 (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. Both of you are edit warring, although neither has breached WP:3RR. One key difference, though, is Dfw79 has made an effort to discuss the content dispute, whereas Tim Zukas has not. For that reason, I have warned Tim that if he continues to revert without discussion or consensus, he risks being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23 - Understand your findings completely. Is alright to go ahead and revert the unacceptable changes (leaving those that we agree on the talk page are acceptable), or should I wait until tomorrow to avoid crossing over into 3RR territory? Just need to know how to proceed right now. Thanks. Dfw79 (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
You should leave the article alone and continue the discussion on the talk page until you reach a consensus. It's not just 3RR you have to be concerned about--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC).

Update - Just reverted another edit by Tim Zukas with the summary of "One of these years you ought to try to give an example where your verbiage is needed:. I think we need to block to get them to discuss their changes. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 11:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on the talk page has begun with Tim Zukas, however so far there has been no movement to compromise from their point of view. Suggestions of compromised language have been presented but met unfavorable and aggressive behavior. Attempting to work towards a compromise so we can get back to improving the article, but so far haven't received much of any movement towards a solution. Dfw79 (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Anyone who's interested can look at the talk page and judge for himself. Tim Zukas (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Do do doggy reported by User:Aunva6 (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Thai Airways International (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Do do doggy (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 10:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC) to 10:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
    1. 10:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC) "/* Fleet */"
    2. 10:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC) "/* Fleet */"
  2. 10:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC) ""
  3. 10:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC) "/* Fleet */"
  4. 11:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 567246223 by JetBlast (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[26] [27] [28]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

user has made zero real comments on his talk page or others.

Comments:

has had prior issues on similar pages. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 13:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
he has removed the block notice from his talkpage, WP:blanking proscribes removal of active declined unblocks, does this fall under that? -- Aunva6talk - contribs 00:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The purpose to disallowing the removal of an unblock request that has been declined is to avoid the appearance of attempting to deceive. The block is still recorded in the talkpage history and the block log, so just removing the blocking notice is covered by the usual talkpage rules allowing a user to remove pretty much whatever they want. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Guardian of the Rings reported by User:Nero the second (Result: )[edit]

Page: Sichuan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Guardian of the Rings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [29]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [30]
  2. [31]
  3. [32]
  4. [33]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34] (he already had one so he knows the rules); notice

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35] [36]

Comments:

I also unilaterally refrained from reverting while a AN/I discussion was pending, but this proved fruitless. The same user is at exactly 3 reverts on many other pages too.

It doesn't get any uglier than this. One thru three were provoked by either your or Underlying lk's blanket revert of coding changes which have no relation to the infobox whatsoever (scroll down), and users have blasted such carelessness at AN/I. Either that or his wilful overlooking of the fact that he and Underlying lk had failed to explain the removal of "|region:CN-XX" parameters, to no effect: {{coord}} displays these coordinates at the title just as {{Infobox settlement}} does. So I think it is clear this blanket undoing instigated this chain of events. The same applies to ALL the other provinces.
And you broke your promise; don't pretend this was not a partial revert. The presiding administrator should not overlook the fact that Nero II is at three reverts as well, the last two as a cover for "error-fixing" edits such as this. I, on the other hand, have not broken any, and will resign to Nero's version of {{Infobox Province of China (PRC)}} until more discussion comes out at WP:TFD; no point in bandying with a user who thinks 2 editors with no prior WP:CHINA experience vs. 1 is a meaningful majority, when no one else from that project has commented. As a side, it's precisely akin to irrationally claiming the probability of rolling doubles on a die is 2/3 after only having three trials. GotR Talk 00:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
You're not new to edit warring so you know the rules, and still chose to break them.--Nero the second (talk) 00:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
That alters neither the fact that you are at three RVT's on as many articles as well, nor that, out of 10+ RVs at the provincial articles, you have offered a remotely tangible explanation only once. It certainly does not cover up your collateral-damage-RV behaviour which has been lampooned by others. GotR Talk 01:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. The discussion at ANI is still ongoing, and, in my view, Nero should not have filed a report here at this point.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Werieth reported by User:Useddenim (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Template:Rail-interchange (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Werieth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [37]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [38]
  2. [39]
  3. [40]
  4. [41]

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

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

Comments:

Werieth (talk · contribs) ignored my explanation of usage (explicit permission is noted on the image page) and instead just kept repeating WP:NFCC and WP:NFC back at me without bothering to explain (or even check carefully, in the 4th revert).

Useddenim (talk) 05:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Explicit permission means nothing, the file is non-free and must be treated as so. Wikipedia does not accept for wikipedia only licensing. Werieth (talk) 09:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • This case is linked to the one reported a few hours ago here. In his talk page three different administrators (Masem, Diannaa and Kww) asked Werieth to not edit war in similar cases but to discuss the images at WP:FFD or at WP:NFCR, or even asking deletion (if suitable) as speedy deletions. Especially admin Masem informed him of the risks of being blocked/restricted/banned if he keeps with this attitude. He still don't hear that and keeps on edit warring with everyone who disagree with his interpretation of the rules. Here we are. Cavarrone 05:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Cavarrone Can you please keep your mouth shut when you do not understand policy? Werieth (talk) 09:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
      • What I understand very well is what the other administrators and editors said. You have other suitable, proper ways to delete images that do not involve edit warring. Cavarrone 10:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Werieth: You claim “policy”, but then don’t give the specific clause or phrase, nor explain (your interpretation of) it. Useddenim (talk) 10:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
        • WP:NFCC#9 wasn't specific enough? Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace Werieth (talk) 10:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • No violation. NFCC criteria like #3a and #8 are clearly open to discussion, but WP:NFCC#9 isn't - this is (or was, before the image was altered) clearly a non-free usage outside articlespace, therefore was clearly a violation, and therefore 3RR did not apply to its removal whilst non-free. Black Kite (talk) 10:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The image should have been been tagged with {{PD-textlogo}} because it consists of simple shapes and text and is not eligible for copyright. I explained this on Werieth's talk page about how this whole edit war could have been avoided but he removed it from his talk page, [44]. Aspects (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I would have to disagree TOO is met in this case. Werieth (talk) 10:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Regardless, the image should have stayed out until that issue was settled. My personal opinion is that the image is right on the edge of textlogo territory. Let the Commons deletion discussion end, and if the image is kept, it can go back into the template. Black Kite (talk) 10:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The whole argument is now moot, as I have replaced the controversial image with a simplified version (which Werieth overlooked with revision 567326594 when he reflexively clicked undo within 90 seconds of the change without actually looking at what the change was). As an aside, the same simplification was done with the original logos: compare File:Logo AMT simplified.svg with File:Logo AMT.svg.
However, no-one has bothered to explain why the explicit permission on the image's page, “the copyright holder has granted permission for this image to be used in Wikipedia”—which is what prompted me to use the image in the first place—can be brushed aside. Useddenim (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Ill copy/paste something from my talk page archive, Unless a file is released under a free license, it must be treated as WP:NONFREE files that have been given "for wikipedia only" should actually be deleted on sight per User:Jimbo Wales, the founder of wikipedia, see related email from 2005 [45]. Our requirements for the usage of non-free media are high On wikipedia a file is either free or non-free, wikipedia only licenses are rejected as it goes against our mission, we could use a lot more non-free content than we do. However it would degrade our m:Mission Werieth (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Harkthuk reported by User:Dawnseeker2000 (Result:Blocked and protected)[edit]

Page
Tuxtla Gutiérrez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Harkthuk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 01:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC) ""
  2. 02:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC) ""
  3. 02:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC) ""
  4. 02:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC) ""
  5. 03:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 02:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Tuxtla Gutiérrez. using TW"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

The article is about a city in Mexico and the user's writing style and username indicate that English is probably not his primary language, and just started editing recently, so probably doesn't understand all of this. I explained via template and quick written message, with links, why this was happening, but the same content was again re-added. Dawnseeker2000 04:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments:
  • Blocked indefinitely and article protected 3 months. This was a sock of Waldemar15 and not a standard 3RR event. He has been socking heavy at that article for months which is why the 3 month protection. I will also notify the checkuser that has been dealing with him of this report.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Wkerney reported by User:2over0 (Result: Warning)[edit]

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


This report covers edit warring in the sense of repeatedly restoring a preferred version despite several other involved editors disagreeing with the changes. Nobody has crossed the 3RR bright line here.

Diffs of the user's reverts (dates are my time):

  1. [46] on 07-29. The copyvio issue mentioned in the discussion linked below arises because the sentence is copied directly without attribution from the given source. Later edits include {{PD-notice}}, which I believe fixes the problem despite Wkerney never acknowledging the issue.
  2. [47] on 07-30.
  3. [48] on 08-03; note that Wkerney made only one edit between this one and the previous - here, to the talkpage discussion linked below, which at that time showed three editors opposing the proposed change in addition to the two who had reverted it previously.
  4. [49] on 08-05. This edit returns the section to a very old version, including the text from the previous edits.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50] on 07-30. Wkerney has not responded to this communication directly, but has participated in the discussion linked below.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: talkpage discussion. The "consensus" Wkerney alludes to is not current and is described at this diff (scroll for the new content).
Comments:

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. I have given Wkerney a formal warning about discretionary sanctions. I have also warned them separately that they risk being blocked if they continue to insist on their version. One small quibble. When Wkerney added the material from the FDA, they did give attribution to the FDA website. Also, it's not clear to me that {{PD-notice}}, which gives no guidance its usage, is applicable. A work normally is in the public domain because its copyright expires or because it is dedicated to the public domain. The US government does not own a copyright in its own works, so there's no copyright to begin with.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
We went through a long and very painful process of finding a consensus definition that worked for everyone several months ago. May 2013 is hardly "very old". Then someone broke consensus by reverting it back to the old version, which I am trying to fix. Having three editors on talk is a far cry from the number of people that established consensus earlier. Also, it is clear that my definition is correct, is well sources, and NPOV, unlike the version currently live that broke consensus. It is this edit here (please look at his comments in the changelog) that should have been sanctioned, but nobody was paying attention to changes at the same since consensus had been reached. Wkerney (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for that. On the small quibble, the issue is that text was lifted without stating its status as a quote; merely providing a citation erroneously denotes original text covered by our license rather than the more liberal permissions that would actually govern its reuse. The piece is a work for hire for the US government and thus not eligible for copyright protection, but use of the text is still covered by the copyvio policy. I could probably have been clearer, but as you say this aspect is pretty minor here; we can continue on my talkpage if you like. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to matter to the edit warriors whether it uses a quote directly from the FDA or the previous consensus definition. Wkerney (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Spshu reported by User:Favre1fan93 (Result: )[edit]

Page
Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Spshu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 21:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 567316913 by Favre1fan93 (talk) - once again unexplained removal of cite & use of TW"
  2. 21:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 567315518 by Favre1fan93 (talk) unexplain removal of cites"
  3. 21:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 567314555 by Favre1fan93 (talk) miss use of TW"
  4. 21:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 567285636 by Favre1fan93 (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 21:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Also attempted to direct the user to use the talk page for their reason for reverting. I have given my explanations in my edit summaries, as well as in my reverts. They don't seem to be getting through to the user. Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

For reference, here is my initial edit summary, explaining my position ([51]) and my attempt in another edit summary asking the user to take it to the talk page (which I only got back the response ("unexplained removal of cites") ([52]) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
There isn't a reason to remove a cite that is proper. You gave no reason, just how you wanted it with no cites in the infobox and that you didn't like the way I cite. You never when to the talk page. Then you cause an edit conflict when I attempted to respond to your "warning" on my talk page from your notification of taking me to 3RR. Spshu (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
There, I reversed it. You happy that you own it now? Spshu (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
First, I don't own that page. I'll try to explain my edits. Initial edit: I removed the reference tags labeled "vty" next to the cast, producers and network in the infobox, as they were unnecessary. Why are they unecessary? Per this guideline (which I did not have the time to find include in my edit summary initially). The source next to the new production team is fine, because out of all the other info in the infobox, that was a new addition, previously unknown, and needed a source. If you just added that name without the sourced, it would have been challenged, but you didn't, which is fine. Then, I took the source that you added, and reformatted it to fit the inline convention that is used on the page, and gave it a better name to help identify it better. Finally I used that source to add info in the Reception section, as that pertained.

Okay, now your first revert: Readded back ref naming of "vty", which you can't make heads or tails about the source compared to "VarietyReview" (hence my change) and readded the ref tags next to the cast, producers and network in the infobox. All of this without any explanation. I then reverted you, explaining again that the extra citing was not needed, and not really understanding why you changed the reference style. Your second revert said it was a "miss use of TW", which it was not. I again revert, asking you why you are changing, especially the source formatting, as you still have not given me a reason for including the extra tags (granted, I did not have the guideline at my disposal to link to either). I also encourage you to take it up on the talk page, which you do not. You revert a third and fourth time, claiming "unexplained removal of cites" (which was false [granted without the policy]) and "use of TW" (not an improper use). And then finally you claim that I own the page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
See now you actually give a reason. You waited until coming to ANI to give a reason (Per MOS guideline) instead of what you wanted ("removing unnecessary extra citations") as a single citation generally are not "unneccesary" nor "extra". What the hell!?! Then why is their one for the Composer?
On top of that you can not figure out "vty" for "Variety"? "vty" is the name for the ref. name "vty", how hard is that. Since, unnecessary is a guideline for you, do you understand that you have unnecessary named 31 references? And unncessarily "junked up" the article with Twitter and Facebook sources (which he is now fighting about)? So how per Favre1fan93 fiat this is the only way to cite: "...proper citing". And unnecessary changed the reference method at Marvel Television to continue this war else where. Isn't TW only to be used against vandalism or give a proper reason? No reason was given, only what he wanted stated as a reason "Extra citations are not needed in the infobox for certain fields." "..and the extra ref tags aren't needed." Favre1fan93: "Again. why are you changing this?" spshu: "unexplain removal of cites". Then absolutely no reason given for reverting by Favre1fan93: "Reverted 1 edit by Spshu (talk) to last revision by Favre1fan93. (TW)", no reason given for a good reason, to keep cites. Then with little time to respond to his "warning" he reports me here with no discussion. Given all of 2 minutes to respond between warning and reporting. Spshu (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

User:50.131.100.128 reported by User:Smuckola (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Mickey Hart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Supralingua (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Spirit into Sound (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.131.100.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

[53]

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] [54]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [55]
  2. [56]
  3. [57]
  4. [58]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [60]

Comments:
For a very long time, this IP address is conducting an edit war on one main article and then also each of the articles which refer to it. So it's apparently the same person. I'm not totally sure, but from reading their talk page, they might be doing edit warring about dates on other articles as well. This is pretty bizarre. Just go and look at all the warnings on their talk page, and all the reverts and the attempts to engage them in discussion, as depicted in the version histories of each referred article as listed above, and you can immediately see it. Thanks. This is my first edit war report, so I hope I did it correctly. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 03:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. I find the whole thing odd. Many of the dates the IP changed appear to be correct per this source. Part of the problem is that the dates in the articles are not supported by sources, so when someone comes along and changes the date without adding a source, how is anyone supposed to know which date is correct? That said, the change to the Mickey Hart article is not supported by the Mickey Hart website source. I have formally warned the IP. Their refusal to respond to any of the warnings from other editors or discuss any of their changes is not acceptable. They may not have breached WP:3RR on any given article, but the pattern of disruption can't continue. I am not going to watch all of the articles, though, so if there's a problem, assuming this report has been archived, please report it to me on my talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Monosh Hojai Dimasa reported by User:Shovon76 (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page
Dimaraji (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Monosh Hojai Dimasa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 10:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC) "/* Proposed boundaries of the state */"
  2. 06:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC) "/* Boundaries of Dimaraji State */"
  3. 10:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC) "/* Areas to be carved out from Cachar District, Assam[citation needed] */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 08:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC) "General note: Introducing factual errors on Dimaraji. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 08:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC) "/* Boundaries of the proposed state */ new section"
Comments:

The editor has been inserting uncited claims regarding the proposed boundaries of the state. The only reference, which gave a more or less detailed description of the boundaries, is from The Telegraph, Calcutta, but the version proposed by the editor does not match with the cited content. Shovon (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

  • No apparent violation. I don't see multiple actual reverts from the editor being reported. I do see a content dispute, and possible insertion of uncited information, but that is a matter for dispute resolution, not here. Black Kite (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Darkness Shines reported by User:Shovon76 (Result: No action at present)[edit]

Page
Bangladesh Civil War (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
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Kmzayeem (talk): Rv stalker. let merger discussion finish. (TW)"
  2. 18:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by Kmzayeem (talk): Nope. get consensus viw the merger discussion. (TW)"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 17:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC) to 17:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    1. 17:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC) "I do not fucking think so"
    2. 17:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 567516153 by Darkness Shines. (TW)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

The editors behavior has been highly combative over different articles and can also be seen here. A warning was also given on the same page. His choice of words for edit summaries are also personal attacks on the opposing contributors. Shovon (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I have not broken 3RR, and also for some weird reason I figure a merger discussion ought to be actually concluded before a unilateral redirect. Also is weird is I am the only one to gave mentioned it on the talk page? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I just hit four BTW, I will not be fucking teamed by hounders and people who will not follow the fucking rules, Darkness Shines (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I self reverted and am doing an edit request to actually restore the fucking mereger discussion, what a joke. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

  • No action Since two of the cited reverts are continuous edits, and DS self reverted the last one, that isn't persuading me to take action here, especially given that the other party is at 3RR here as well. The issue should be discussed on the talkpage regarding merging or redirecting and in which direction, and that is what I will be looking for. Black Kite (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
@Black Kite: You do realize that I have just had to ask for yw oedit protects because of this shit right? Wasting admin and editors time because these guys will not follow policy? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Pinkbeast reported by User:Taninao0126 (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Jennifer O'Neill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pinkbeast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block