Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive224

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

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

Page: Spongebob Squarepants (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: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

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

Comments:

This is simple WP:NFC enforcement, which is exempt from 3RR. Ive asked for rationales explaining why the images need kept and have gotten silence and blind reverts. WP:NFCC requires that the usage of non-free media meet specific guidelines. In this case they are not being met and the user refused to explain why they think it is being met. Werieth (talk) 10:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation Removing copyright violations from articles is an exemption from WP:3RR. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Onam2013 reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page
File:Thalapathi poster.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Onam2013 (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 05:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC) to 05:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
    1. 05:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 574015136 by Kailash29792 (talk)"
    2. 05:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC) "Onam2013 uploaded a new version of "File:Thalapathi poster.jpg""
  2. 05:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC) "Onam2013 uploaded a new version of "File:Thalapathi poster.jpg""
  3. Consecutive edits made from 03:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC) to 04:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
    1. 03:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC) "Onam2013 uploaded a new version of "File:Thalapathi poster.jpg""
    2. 04:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 574186518 by Stefan2 (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 07:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC) "/* September 2013 */"
  2. 15:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC) "/* September 2013 */"
  3. 05:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC) "/* September 2013 */"
  4. 05:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on File:Thalapathi poster.jpg. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

He keeps uploading a fake image over the official one uploaded by me Kailash29792 (talk) 07:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

  • For your information: I noticed some edit warring over the file yesterday, and there is some discussion on my talk page at User talk:Stefan2#Apology. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

His edit pattern suggests that this user is most likely the duck sock of a master who was blocked for abusing multiple accounts Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mealwaysrockz007. Watch him adding back the same unsourced promotional content in Kunchacko Boban which the blocked socks used to do frequently, diff. Requesting indefinite block. JK (talk) 04:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Bardrick reported by User:Richard BB (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page
United Kingdom local elections, 2014 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Bardrick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 574286868 There is no concensus with Richard BB, he's been blocking this for months against multiple other users & yet allows pictures of the Liblabcon leaders to remain"
  2. 00:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 574181394 by Richard BB It's already been discussed on the talk page with other users & y've lost the point & won't accept it, & threats won't get u anywhere little chap either"
  3. 13:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 574180308 by Richard BB (talk) Actions speak louder than words little fella, yr trying to control political information against multiple other users u naughty boy ; )"
  4. 13:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 574176421 by Richard BB (talk) Limiting Wiki information for politically biased reasoning by Richard BB - not good little chap =/"
  5. 12:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 574175702 by Bardrick (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 13:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on United Kingdom local elections, 2014. (TW)"
  2. 06:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC) "/* Talk:United Kingdom local elections, 2014 */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 06:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC) "/* Edit warring by User talkBardrick */ new section"
  2. 06:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC) "/* Edit warring by User talkBardrick */ Oops"
Comments:

Also a lack of good faith on this users part, as he has accused me in the above edit summaries of being politically biased against UKIP, when I have outright said on the talk page that I am neutral towards their inclusion on this article, and would happily support it if consensus were attained (which it hasn't been). — Richard BB 20:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

From Bardrick - This "RichardBB" character has been dominating the page in question for months, repeatedly undoing edits from multiple users without good reason, & using sinister control speak language like "I just want concensus & we need to talk about it" to various other users who give up & just leave it. When he's argued with after his multiple immediate reversion edits against people he then starts threatening "going to an administrator to get other users blocked". He should get a life & stop the political (it has to be motivated by this, who else would haunt a page in this way obsessively for months continually deleting uncontentious information?) control freakery.

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll also take this opportunity to once more point out that I'm not "dominating" the page at all. Wikipedia works by consensus, and that consensus has not been achieved for this particular edit. I'm honestly neither for nor against UKIP's inclusion: all I want is consensus, as this is always a contentious issue, but it hasn't been achieved. — Richard BB 20:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Let me support what Richard BB says here. Bardrick's comments about Richard BB do not describe what I have seen. Richard BB has acted appropriately and helpfully. Bardrick was not responsive to other editors. I, as I've said on the relevant Talk page and in edits, support the edit Bardrick wants made, but the matter has been discussed on the Talk page and consensus for such a change was clearly not reached. Bondegezou (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

User:StAnselm reported by User:Pass a Method (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page: Irreligion in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: StAnselm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [8]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 07:28 24 September removed image array
  2. 20:35 24 September My deletion wasn't unexplained at all
  3. 21:01 24 September Please stop edit-warring.....
  4. 21:14 24 September BLP concerns < -- (he self-reverted that)
  5. 22:08, 24 September removed living individuals who are not notable for being irreligious

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [10]

Comments:

I have seen this user get involved in edit wars numerous times and he usually narrowly gets away without a block. Please do not let him get away without a block this time. Pass a Method talk 21:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Reply Thats untrue, there is no support for your edit. Only partial support for removal of some specific entries. Secondly, the civility link you posted i quickly re-edited so you're misrepresenting me. Pass a Method talk 21:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not mis-representing you at all. If you redact an insult without apology, you are still responsible for it. Anyway, I have self-reverted and done as you suggest. StAnselm (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Reply Thats not a self-revert since i was not expecting 7 images to be removed. Your argument would hold merit if the title of the article was "anti-theist americans" or "atheist activist Americans". Instead, the article title is a broad/inclusive "irreligious". Furthermore, why would you remove one of the most notable irreligious Americans in history such as Carl Sagan? Pass a Method talk 22:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I removed five people - it's gone from 20 images down to 15. Sagan is still there. StAnselm (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I missed that because you re-arranged the order of the images. Anyway, i still believe you have a double standard because there are articles which are have the same exact issues but you never touch those articles. If you let go of this double standard your argument would be more believable. See for example American Jews or Muslim Americans Pass a Method talk 23:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I edit literally thousands of articles. Are you criticizing me for not editing articles? As it turns out, I found the Irreligion in the United States article as a reader. But now that I look at American Jews - yes, I suspect that all those people are known for being Jewish. Anyway, I didn't change the order of the images at all - I kept the order and re-numbered to fit. StAnselm (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined. StAnselm did initiate a discussion at WP:BLPN, and my reading is there's significant support for removing certain images from the article. Keeping in mind WP:BLPREMOVE, a consensus needs to be reached before images may be re-added.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

User:TJRC reported by User:Elvey (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Copyright status of work by the U.S. government (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TJRC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: permalink

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff
  2. diff
  3. diff


Above are three recent diffs showing edit warring. There's been lots and lots of edit warring prior to this, as well as edit warring on the talk page itself, and dispute resolution efforts regarding both in other forums (including a couple that he opened while this ANI (diff) was still open) but the above is what's recent; there's no 3RR violation, it's clearly edit warring though. A couple of TJRC's many previous article reverts:

  1. diff
  2. diff

In the past, instead of answering my questions, he's deleted my questions from the article talk page not once - [11] or twice - diff but three times - diff — justified only by a false claim that his edits were removing interruptions from his comments; if you look at those diffs, you'll see they do no such thing. All these three diffs show is TJRC removing my own additions to my own comments. Yet, TJRC still maintains that these edits were not improper, even after he was told otherwise, even by others, at AN/I!

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

I've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page. discussion. All he's done lately is reverted-without-talk. Diff of most recent attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. diff
  2. diff

Comments:

After the edit shown in the very first diff above, I wrote the following on the talk page to TJRC, but his only response was to revert, yet again, and again - second and third diffs, above (and he's till unrepentant).

If you're not going to discuss things, then don't don't revert; to do so is to edit war. Specifically: I edited, adding the comment,
Per TJRC's TP suggestion that we "include something (with appropriate sources) to the effect that many states waive some or all of their rights under copyright law."
I edited per your suggestion. And yet: Your response was (diff):
Reverted to revision 569514616 by TJRC: Revert to the version approved by two editors; Elvey is the lone wolf here. (TW)
A reminder: WP:!VOTE says, "[!VOTE] serves as a cute little reminder that it is "not the vote" that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important."
Should I not take you on your word when you suggested we "include something (with appropriate sources) to the effect that many states waive some or all of their rights under copyright law" ?

Summary of overall dispute[edit]

All I really want to do is leave the article in a state such that a reader is not left with the wrong impression about state works. In other words, so long as this article indicates that the works of some states are Public Domain, that many states waive some or all of their rights under copyright law, or doesn't lead the reader to believe otherwise, we should be good. (There's ample proof that these statements are true; see, e.g. the in-article references, or the ones noted on the talk page, or in {{|tl|PD-FLGov}}.) TJRC finds my wording unacceptable and keeps reverting it, but won't offer wording that is acceptable that does what he had at one time agreed was acceptable - "include something (with appropriate sources) to the effect that many states waive some or all of their rights under copyright law" (that last quote is a quote from TJRC (diff showing him saying it!)) The worst of the insanity is that he keeps reverting me, claiming I'm a lone wolf, when what I'm doing is (diff) adding what he said he had no objection to! It's inexplicable. I feel TJRC is too often WP:NOTHERE, which is why I think A 0RR or 1RR restriction is warranted. If he was here to improve the encyclopedia, the article would certainly "include something (with appropriate sources) to the effect that many states waive some or all of their rights under copyright law" in it by now. --Elvey (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Responses[edit]

Thanks. Hope that helps. Yup, DR is appropriate (and has been tried and will be tried again, I'm sure). I reported the edit warring because it seems to me it was the most appropriate dispute resolution step. --Elvey (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment by TJRC[edit]

Ah, the latest episode of Elveydrama.

This is actually very simple. This article is "copyright status of works of the U.S. government". Elvey seeks to add material about works of state and other governments (for brevity, I'll just say "state" from here on in). Works of state governments are not works of the U.S. Government. Works of state governments are not within the scope of the article. That's it in a nutshell.

Works of the U.S. government are markedly different from other works: they are statutorily ineligible for copyright. This is not true of works of other governments, including state governments. The distinction that needs to be addressed is already covered in the article (or was, until Elvey's most recent reversion; you can see my preferred text here): "The lack of copyright protection for works of the United States government does not apply to works of state or municipal government or to works of the governments of the District of Columbia or Puerto Rico." Boom. That's it. That's the entire sum of the relevance of such works to this topic.

Instead, Elvey wishes to add additional off-topic material to this article. He wants to add material about works of state governments, which is not part of the statutory exception. Elvey has been active producing another article (steeped in WP:SYNTH and WP:OR) on that subject: Copyright status of work by U.S. subnational governments. We include a hatnote in the section pointing to that article: "For individual state governments' treatment of their copyrights, see Copyright status of work by U.S. subnational governments." That's probably more than is appropriate; I would prefer that we instead have the usual entry in the "See also" section at the bottom of the article; but that's a small concession, and I don't mind making it.

But that's not enough for Elvey: he wants to add the off-topic material to the body of the text and delete sourced info. Elvey's preferred version adds his off-topic WP:OR material about state governments, and removes material about other territories, which material is reliably sourced to the U.S. Copyright Office document Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Here's his edit: [12]. I'm not the only editor to have reverted edits like this, Prosfilaes (talk · contribs) has as well: [13]. His claims about Florida and California probably have a grain of truth to them, but are based on his WP:OR article.

Elvey's characterization is that I will not find an alternate way of adding his off-topic material misses that it's already in there, in the hatnote; and being a different topic, is not discussed in the text itself, nor should it be.

As discussed in the talk page, trying to find some reference in a reliable source to support his pet text, I've checked a number of standard sources, to see how they deal with this issue. None do more than simply noting that works of state governments are not within the statutory exclusion, which is exactly how the Wikipedia article handles it. Nimmer on Copyright (an 11-volume treatise on US copyright law by Melville Nimmer and David Nimmer, unquestionably the leading authority on copyright law, apart from the statutes and cases themselves), treats it this way. One of the leading law school textbooks (if not the leading law school textbook) on the subject, Joyce, Leaffler, Jaszi, Ochoa & Carroll, Copyright Law, 9th edition), treats it this way. A few others I've checked don't cover it at all. No reliable source deals with it as Elvey seeks to, and no Wikipedia editor apart from Elvey is seeking to add it.

The underlying problem here is that Elvey does not understand law in general, and in particular copyright law, yet he continues to confidently edit copyright and other legal articles without regard to that. (I'm not the only one to have noted this. In the last episode of Elveydrama, an admin noted "My limited interaction with Elvey indicates that (1) he has no grasp of legal principles and (2) he has great trouble connecting sources with article assertions. As a consequence, he makes rather bizarre claims about content, as well as outlandish claims about others' conduct.") In this article he has claimed that government ownership of copyright is unconstitutional [14]; it is not. He has claimed that some works are PD as works of California government when they are not (see, e.g., File:Jerry Brown portrait (1984).jpg, which Elvey has tagged as a public domain work of the California government) despite there being no indication that they are works of the California government, or indeed that they were ever even owned by the California government. He has a history of confusing open-records law with copyright law.

Add to that Elvey's continued hostility with just about anyone who dares to make an edit that varies from his preferred text (not just here, and not just me, but elsewhere and with other editors; for a good time, look at the "last episode" linked above; including the lengthy bit he adds after the ANI had been closed), is it any surprise I limit my engagement with him? I think I've more than bent over backward in the talk page to this article. He's now following some of my other edits; and trying to pull me into another fight over those, which I am declining (see User_talk:TJRC#Calculus_made_easy_-_inappropriate_external_link_removal). I realize that I'm being forced to interact with him on this subject, but frankly, the less I have to deal with him, the better I will feel.

As an aside, I make no claims of WP:OWN with respect to this article. I did not author it, and, my edits to it have been relatively small and, apart from the Elveydrama, infrequent. In no way do I feel that this is "my" article. I have to admit, I have a sense of pride with respect to the few dozen articles that I have authored, but quite frankly, I like it when I see that they attract enough attention to be improved by others.

Note, I'm writing this on the evening of Tuesday, Sept. 24, and am leaving for vacation this weekend, as I've already informed Elvey on his talk page. I will be busy putting my workload in order for the remaining three days of the week, and may not respond quickly or in depth. After Friday, Sept. 27, I will not be able to respond at all until sometime in the second week of October. TJRC (talk) 00:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Comparison of versions[edit]

To focus this, here is a summary of the dispute between Elvey and me. I am labeling these "TJRC version" and "Elvey version" for identification purposes only, and not to claim ownership of the article by either Elvey or myself. My editorialization is in the "comments" column. The table is based on the comparison here.

Issue Comment TJRC version Elvey version
Works of state governments and municipal governments not qualifying as WotUSG: Present in both TJRC version and Elvey version, different wording. Surprisingly, no reference provided in either TJRC or Elvey version, and there should be. A good reference for this is US Copyright Office, Compendium II, § 206.03, "Works (other than edicts of government prepared by officers or employees of any government (except the U.S. Government) including State, local, or foreign governments, are subject to registration if they are otherwise copyrightable." Present Present
Works of the government of DC not not qualifying as WotUSG Present, supported by reference to US Copyright Office, Compendium II, which states, "Works of the government of the District of Columbia, as now constituted, are not considered U.S. Government works." Deleted
Works of the gov't of Puerto Rico not qualifying as WotUSG Present, supported by reference to US Copyright Office, Compendium II, which states, "Works of the government of Puerto Rico are not considered to be U.S. Government works." Deleted
Works of "Unorganized territories" (such as American Samoa and the former Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands) treated as WotUSG Present in both versions, identically worded and cited. Present Present
Claim that some states have placed much of their work into public domain or waived copyright As mentioned above, by definition, works of state and municipal governments are not works of the US government, and this passage is off-topic for this article. (The fact that state works are not within the scope of WotUSG is within scope, because it assists in defining WotUSG; after that, further discussion of state works are out-of-scope.)

Furthermore, this claim is unsupported by any reference, but apparently relies on the content of Copyright status of work by U.S. subnational governments. This article is entirely WP:OR (particularly WP:SYNTH) and cites only one non-primary source; all others are primary sources being interpreted as original research by the contributors to the article. The sole secondary source that is cited references copyright only once, in a single sentence that mentions it in passing an that does not characterize the law on copyright as represented in the article. I have a strong interest in keeping the Copyright status of work by the U.S. government article free of this original research, which is now confined to Copyright status of work by U.S. subnational governments.

Deleted Present, unsourced. This passage makes up 2/3 of the Elvey revision
Hatnote Elvey text is misdescriptive. Not all states are described in the target, and the article only describes the discussed states' treatment of their own works as owners (much as any other copyright owner can do); states do not have copyright laws (apart from the narrow exception of pre-1972 sound recordings), and have not been permitted to have copyright laws since 1978. Calling this "details of..."implies it's details of the present article, which is actually about whether these works are subject to copyright as a matter of copyright law. "For individual state governments' treatment of their copyrights, see Copyright status of work by U.S. subnational governments."; however, my preference would be to delete the hatnote and instead have a "See also" entry. The retention of the hatnote is a concession to Elvey. "For details regarding every state, locality and organized territory, see Copyright status of work by U.S. subnational governments."

TJRC (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

User:69.173.6.5 reported by User:MrX (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 69.173.6.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [16]
  2. [17]
  3. [18]
  4. [19]
  5. [20]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]

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

Comments:
Consensus leans strongly toward included this well-cited material. The IP repeatedly claims that the content does not contain quotes, which is a red herring argument. They have reverted the same material at least five times which is disruptive to the efforts of other editors to improve the article. - MrX 14:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. The situation is a bit more complex than you make it out to be, but the IP did (just barely) violate WP:3RR, despite being properly warned.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

User:132.194.210.73 reported by User:Gaijin42 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
National Rifle Association (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
132.194.210.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 16:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 574482341 by North8000 (talk)The article before my edits was in clear violation of NPOV. I made edits to bring it in line with Wikipedia policy. You please stop."
  2. 16:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 574480940 by Arzel (talk) NPOV policy prevents deleting text that is "perceived" to be biased. I've address the issue in the talk page. The article was before in clear violation of NPOV."
  3. 16:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 574480463 by BatteryIncluded (talk) "self-defense training" is a biased statement. The NRA is not teaching Karate, it's teaching people how to use guns."
  4. 16:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 574479338 by Gaijin42 (talk)"
  5. 16:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 16:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view. (TW)"
  2. 16:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC) "Final warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view. (TW)"
  3. 16:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC) "/* 3rr */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

I did make an attempt to resolve the conflict via the article's talk page. The article before my edits was in clear violation of NPOV and read like an advertisement and is in violation of the Wikipedia Spam policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.194.210.73 (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

User:‎Atotalstranger reported by User:Bhny (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: VY Canis Majoris (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Atotalstranger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [23]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [24]
  2. [25]
  3. [26]
  4. [27]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29]

Comments:
User has had other warning for vandalism today Bhny (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 36 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Joseph1357 reported by User:Singularity42 (Result: No vio)[edit]

Page
Template:Filmsbygenre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Joseph1357 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 19:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC) ""
  2. 19:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC) ""
  3. 18:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 19:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

New editor seems to be removing content on various pages without explanation, and then edit warring to keep the information out, even after edit summaries asking for explanations, a warning, and a link to WP:BRD. Singularity42 (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined Feel free to re-report if he continues, but I'm very hesitant to block someone at 2RR like this. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Shiite reported by Nanner-Nanner (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Hujr ibn Adi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Shiite (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. 14:45, 25 September 2013
  2. 21:25, 24 September 2013‎
  3. 21:37, 22 September 2013‎

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Hujr ibn Adi

Comments: The majority agrees that the new info box is better for the article but Shiite keeps reverting the edits even though the majority already agreed that the new one is better. Nanner-Nanner (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Innab reported by User:Prototime (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

Page: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Innab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [30]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7 (series of consecutive partial reverts)
  8. 8
  9. 9

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Removal_of_the_Provisions_of_the_Law

Comments:
Innab has repeatedly reverted, in whole or in part, edits to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act article despite the reverts being against consensus and despite being reverted herself by multiple editors. The article is currently undergoing an extended Good Article review, and a few weeks ago in the course of that review, a consensus was formed with input from several editors that the article was too long and that the former "Provisions by effective date" section should be split off into its own article. See discussion at Talk:Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act/GA1; the new article can be found at Provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. However, starting a few days ago, Innab has persistently edited the article to restore all or much of the material that was moved to the new article back to the main article. At first, her reasoning was that the consensus for splitting the material was invalid because it formed in the course of a GA review, but after multiple editors have repeatedly reverted her edits, she now offers little rationale for her continued reverts. She also has persistently removed the "Background" section of the article without explanation, and there is certainly no consensus or even discussion about removing that section. I reverted her edits last Sunday, but I ceased to revert her that day after I approached 3RR; other editors then began to revert her. I have not reverted her since last Sunday, but given her persistent battles with other editors, I did warn her today that she was edit warring. She then responded to this by warning me that I am edit warring (see: diff) and resumed her reverts to the article. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Several of us have tried to reason with this Innab, but she continues to insist that her way is the right way. The article is now a monstrous 229kB+ and contains excessive detail. That aside, the edit warring and WP:IDHT by Innab is disruptive, especially at a time when this article is getting more than 10,000 views per day. - MrX 21:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

User:50.73.181.181 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Schrader valve (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.73.181.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Edit-warring over a spelling, contrary to WP:ENGVAR

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [32]
  2. [33]
  3. [34]

Warnings issued:

Only response was a further reversion with the edit summary, "Undid revision by Dingy (Just say no to British-only words, especially about American items)"

Andy Dingley (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation - there are only three reverts here (and I'm not convinced enough that this IP is the same as 24... to block). ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 22:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Judgeking reported by User:Werieth (Result: Irrelevant)[edit]

Page
Labyrinth (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Judgeking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 03:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 574043538 by Werieth (talk)"
  2. 03:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 574554156 by Werieth (talk)"
  3. 03:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 574554397 by Werieth (talk)"
  4. 04:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 574554455 by Werieth (talk)"
  5. 04:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 574554516 by Werieth (talk)"
  6. 04:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 574554644 by Werieth (talk) Nope, they're all fine"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 03:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC) "Warning about non-free content usage"
  2. 03:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC) "/* September 2013 */"
  3. 04:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC) "/* September 2013 */"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User has repeatedly violated NFCC. Werieth (talk) 04:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Ill also note that NFCC enforcement is exempt from 3RR. Werieth (talk) 04:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours This page didn't result in action, so Werieth went to WP:ANI, where I found the situation and blocked. I didn't come over here until well after I'd levied the block. Nyttend (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Mewulwe reported by User:Askave (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Czechia - the name dispute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mewulwe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

See history : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Czechia_-_the_name_dispute&action=history
Vandalism: user Mewulwe many times deleted all my article, with redirection of deleted page to the other. I announced I am prepared to discuss the issue, but he has been reacted the same way (deleting) without any discussion

Askave (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the protectionAskave (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Jeenahaitohdussehrapemil reported by User:Sitush (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [35]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [36]
  2. [37]
  3. [38]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40]

Comments:

This user and what appears to be them in logged-out mode have been warring with various people for days now and is almost always acting outside policy (eg: another recent episode concerned introduction of copyrighted images). The three latest examples given above are straightforward BLP violations, for which the warning diff above shows both specific notice, an EW notice and a personalised request to abstain. They need a break to read up on policy.

Please also note that they have been mentioned at SPI and the general issues surrounding this small group of articles has been discussed here. - Sitush (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Canoe1967 reported by User:Thargor Orlando (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Genetically modified food controversies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Canoe1967 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: Two different issues

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [41]
  2. [42]
  3. [43]
  4. [44] (reversion of [45])
  5. [46]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Starts here, but this is an ongoing issue.

Comments:

  • Of those seven diffs two of them are a double link of the same diff = only two edits. The other four edits are all to different areas in the article and none are a 3peat.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Five diffs, and none of them are a double link. I'm sure the closing admin can sort it out, but someone who was blocked for two days last year for edit warring should surely be aware of how this works. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • User:Canoe1967 is in high battleground mode across the suite of GM articles where he has been active lately, not discussing content but instead being disruptive:
  1. soft edit warring (reverting instead of talking) on Genetically modified food
    1. here and
    2. here
  2. disrupting discussion on Talk:Monsanto modified wheat mystery,
    1. (vulgarity) dif and
    2. dif and
    3. dif
  3. Attacking other editors instead of discussing content on the Talk page of the subject article:
    1. dif
    2. and dif
    3. and dif

Some kind of time out from GM-related articles would perhaps be useful. Jytdog (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

  • I agree. Please note that this series of reverts today is not an isolated event, but part of a pattern that has been ongoing over a series of weeks, [48], only happening to go above three at once today. At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Canoe1967/Monsanto and GMO, there was a consensus that Canoe is acting disruptively and against consensus, see even [49], [50], [51] (deleted edits, visible only to admins, but showing edit warring over an "index" label). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. I blocked Canoe before I saw Jytdog's (and now Tryptofish's) comments above. The block was for breaching WP:3RR, a bit of attitude on the article originally reported, and Canoe's block history. If you're suggesting some type of topic ban, WP:AN is the place for that, not here.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Athenean reported by User:Cavann (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: African admixture in Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Athenean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) User being reported: 108.5.45.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: deletion of subsection "Admixture in Greeks" [52].

IP 108.5.45.96 [53] is a single-purpose account. It uses same arguments with Athenean (e.g., pseudo-science, not a reliable source etc). Basically rehashes the arguments by Athenean here [54] and here User_talk:Cavann#Spiteful_revert. Athenean also apparently has a vendetta against this scientist, Arnaiz-Villena, removing his articles from other pages [55] [56], and calling him a "kook" [57]. The only other editor who deleted this subsection was Dr.K., but he was more concerned about possible plagiarism.[58] Moreover, Athenean has a disruptive editing pattern [59] and it is clear that IP is a single purpose account; however, it might be just a proxy, so not sure if it will match Athenean's IP.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 00:59, 26 September 2013 by Athenean
  2. 02:23, 26 September 2013 by Athenean
  3. 11:08, 26 September 2013 by IP 108.5.45.96
  4. 11:37, 26 September 2013 by IP 108.5.45.96

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Athenean is well aware of consequences of edit-warring, since he was blocked for it various times [60]. He also posted the multiple 3RR templates on my talk page himself (eg: [61]).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:African_admixture_in_Europe#Admixture_in_Greece_section

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. I've fully protected the article for three days.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

User:2.103.39.226 reported by User:Alfietucker (Result: Protected)[edit]

IP 2.103.39.226 has started making edits on Wikipedia today, exclusively on Barilla Group, and has reverted here, here, and here. I have tried to point out the potential violation of WP:3RR on his/her talk page, and invited them to discuss issues on the article's talk page - a discussion I opened here; my notice on the IP's talk page only got the following response and yet another revert in the Barilla Group article here. Alfietucker (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected Hopefully this will prompt him to take the matter to the talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

User:103.6.87.121 reported by User:AdamDeanHall (Result: Most IPs Hardblocked/Remaining Blocked)[edit]

Page: Dan Vs. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 103.6.87.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:
This user keeps adding unsourced content to the Dan Vs. page and keeps adding that the show will be canceled when the Hub Network says it will be canceled. He's on the verge of violating the three-revert rule and starting an edit war. AdamDeanHall (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not adding unsourced content, I'm removing it, cause there's no source saying Hub axed the show. We need proof that it may or may not come back. 103.6.87.121 (talk) 02:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Just so you know, 14.136.236.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is continually trying to remove your comments. I am restoring and warning them. — Richard BB 22:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note – I've hardblocked all but two of the IP ranges they've been using. Two ranges I've softblocked since those ranges appear to be used for colocation. Elockid (Talk) 02:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Lihaas reported by User:Ohconfucius (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page: Westgate shopping mall shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lihaas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: link permitted or latterly

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [62]
  2. [63]
  3. [64]
  4. [65]
  5. [66]
  6. [67]
  7. [68]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69] and [70]

Comments:
As the talk page discussions show, the editor is going against consensus, insisting on including rhetorical statements in the "reactions" section, arguing their own interpretation of what is a "notable" reaction, but ignoring the concerns of others about material that is not encyclopaedic. They often leave edit summaries and discussion comments that assume bad faith or unhelpful comments implying censorship or that others don't read what they say or that the removal of what is agreed (consensually) to be "unencycopaedic cruft" is "vandalism". Arguably, the editor has already made concessions, and has not resisted the removal of much of the bland rhetoric, but remains insistent on including them for African Union countries because they believe these are "particularly notable".

They have been successively signalling their disagreement by placing {{disputed}} and {{npov}} tags on the relevant section. Even after the consensus seemed clear to me, I created a poll, but the editor removed it along with some votes.

In this edit, they remove what is just about the only reaction that I would consider worthy of including – that security measures are being tightened in soft targets around the world. However, that edit is highly complex and the edit summary is a bit garbled. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

1. There was no warning of edit warring. Please see said users followup comment on my page.; 2. The user in question has also revert-warred multiple times on this page without participating in discussion. According to WP:BRD, his initialy BOLD revert was reverted, which mean she ought to seek consensus discussion. I then put in a different version from mine to seek accomodation, tagged the page (to generate discussion, as is the point of tags) and I asked questions to come up with a solution in talk. In talk, he did not answer my questions, he reinstated his version. For example, I have notified and kept the admin User:John abreast of the situation that I am eliciting conversation and discussion (not just voting (as he is doing on the page, and it is quite clear that WP:Consensus is not formed by voting)). 3. He accuses me of going against consensus when I have asked and shown on the talk page that his version and additions have ZERO consensus. I did that yesterday before he brought this here. There is no consensus, and no discussion for what he deems as notable to stay and what he deems as illegitmate. 4. He also removed the tag without any discussion. Removing tag to edit war is itself been before grounds for a block when consensus discussions are ongoing

What are we supposed to do if discussions are not followed? How do I even try to generate a discussion if it is dismissed in favour of such wars without consensus? And then complaining to ANI to dismiss progress on discussion-based consensus. (the only semblance of discussion/consensus he seeks is an outright vote of 2 versions without any reason WHATSOEVER of discussing matters at hand)
It is deceptive that he has made an attempt to resolve a dispute because it was ME that worked off a truncated version AND discussed on the talk page. Something he has not explained for his versionLihaas (talk) 10:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Specifically, he now accuses me here of inserting rhetorical statements, when his own version has nothing but selective rhetorical statement that he personally deems noteworthy (as I brought mention of on the talk page). Am I arguing my OWN version for what is notable? If I wanted my version of netural notability I would have all the flags, I was not the one to choose my own selective version of notabiltiy and I even discussed it. While content issues are not for ANI, in response to the user he says I deem AU statements more notable (but I asked so on discussion), he deems bland rhetoric by the USA/UK as notable, has ZERO mention of it on the talk page and continues to reinssert it by his own whim.
As mentioned the tag is for disputes, as the edit mentions "consensus seemed clear to me" and that he created a "poll", which is pretty obviously spelt out by the user that he is unaware of how WP:Consensus works (and I said it as much that we don't vote count, yet he deems his vote counting to be consensus personally). As an involved editor, he cannot deem consensus (especially on his side)
In the edit in question I am reverting an unexplained removal that YOU removed. You oppose me now of accepting your version too of removing FLAGCRUFT (which is also heavily supported by edits/discussion)? And again cited by you is your personal whim which ought to be diktat: "only reaction that I would consider worthy of including ". Hasnt this just spelt out feelings of WP:OWN that personal views have been used to determine consensus?Lihaas (talk) 10:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
'note- I have not edited the page today at all. Yet on the talk page, the user has only written "Tthe OP said there were too many flags and "excessive reactions". And we seem to still be talking about too many reactions" in response to my questions. Has answered NONE of the questions to stimulate consensus, has reverted to the tag (that has no reason WHATSOEVER) and comes here to complain that I am restoring "my" version, while admitting he used his personal opinion.
Also note, Instead of warring I have added almost all of the content oin the page froum sources in the early days for a page that was tremedously popular with 50k hits (must be one of ITN hottest links). I would request we go back to adding a lo tmore CONTENT as there is to be added now (and I have a bunch of links to add when this settles down)Lihaas (talk) 11:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • For clarity and for everyone's benefit, the warring notification was indeed posted, corresponding to the link in the report above. The fact that Lihaas "added almost all of the content oin the page froum sources in the early days" is entirely irrelevant as this confers no ownership rights. Lihaas insists on posting recentist cruft in defiance of consensus and has sought to lawyer and launch red herrings on for example why I left Obama's comment undeleted when it's hasn't been there for two days already. Lihaas did make this edit approximately 20 hours ago, and has made [71][72][73] edits today, but has not touched the disputed content as that has not changed since that edit of 20 hours ago. I did not want to provoke. The editor keeps insisting that they are continuing the BRD, like here (diff missing from above) but if one looke carefully at the diffs, you will see that the meaningless waffle about the UN press office, rhetoric from Zuma and Abdelaziz keeps reappearing. The argument continues, and there is no indication that Lihaas accepts there isn't room in our consensus for rhetorical soundbytes. It indicates that the underlying thrust remains the same cruft inclusion but on slightly different content. If one were to be strict on applying WP:3RR, though, viz: A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, there is no doubt Lihaas is in breach and can and ought to be blocked. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 14:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. My inclination is to take no action on this report (or issue warnings), partly because a breach of WP:3RR isn't clear, partly because it's a bit stale, and partly because OhC has also been edit-warring at roughly the same time. With respect to the diffs listed above, #1 is from 9/22 and too old. #2-5 are from 9/24, and the last two are from 9/25. The breach would have occurred on 9/24 or on 9/24 going into 9/25. However, there is no breach if #4 isn't counted. Could someone clarify #4? On the surface, it's an addition, but if it is adding something that was previously removed then, it's a revert. Articles like these with heavy activity are not easy to evaluate, so a little help, preferably from OhC, would be appreciated. As for the 3RR warning, OhC is correct. There was a warning on 9/24 before diffs #6 and 7. Even without a warning, Lihaas is an experienced editor and should not require one.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • No response from anyone - closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Andrewm19912 reported by User:Besieged (Result: Andrewm19912 blocked; article semi-protected)[edit]

Page
S.L. Benfica (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Andrewm19912 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 574652152 by 81.193.43.132 (talk)"
  2. 20:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 574647362 by 81.193.43.132 (talk) vandal!!!!!!!!!!"
  3. 18:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC) "You clearly don't know what classifies as a good standing article on Wikipedia. you have no authority to ban anyone!!!!!!!!!"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 17:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC) to 17:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
    1. 17:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC) "stop deleting my work, explain how these aren't improvements?"
    2. 17:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC) "stop deleting my work, explain how these aren't improvements?"
    3. 17:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC) "/* First team squad */ added back Serialslb's edit on the squads list"
  5. 15:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 574618896 by 85.247.78.240 (talk)"
  6. 14:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 574606350 by 85.247.78.240 (talk)"
  7. Consecutive edits made from 13:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC) to 13:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
    1. 13:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 574598069 by 85.247.78.240 (talk)"
    2. 13:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 574597649 by 85.247.78.240 (talk)"
    3. 13:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 574597368 by 85.247.78.240 (talk)"
    4. 13:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 574597246 by 85.247.78.240 (talk)"
  8. Consecutive edits made from 11:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC) to 11:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
    1. 11:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC) "you're the only one who has a problem with it, they are clear improvments!!!!"
    2. 11:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC) "I have made the page much better with my improvments, they took alot of hours to do, so dont delete my hard work, i only reverted you're revert of my stuff, no one elses"
  9. Consecutive edits made from 17:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC) to 17:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
    1. 17:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC) "STOP VANDALISING!!!!"
    2. 17:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC) "STOP VANDALISING!!!!"
  10. Consecutive edits made from 17:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC) to 17:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
    1. 17:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC) "how am i vandilising? my edits improved the page. explain how what i'm doing lowers the standard of the page?"
    2. 17:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 574485231 by BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk)"
    3. 17:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC) "clear improvements, not vandalism!!!"
  11. Consecutive edits made from 16:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC) to 16:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
    1. 16:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 574463252 by 85.245.91.63 (talk)"
    2. 16:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 574464949 by 85.245.91.63 (talk)"
  12. Consecutive edits made from 12:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC) to 12:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
    1. 12:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC) "You’re the one vandalising, not me; I clearly made improvements to the Benfica Page. And you have no authority to ban anyone; you don’t even have a username. I didn’t make this account to vandalise, i support benfica"
    2. 12:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC) "vandalism!!!! , you’re making the page worse"
  13. 21:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision:- most footy pages on wikipedia do it in this way"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 22:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Refactoring others' talk page comments on Talk:S.L. Benfica. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 22:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Andrewm19912 (talk) to last revision by Threeohsix. (TW)"
Comments:

User seems to be engaged in an ongoing edit war with one or more other editors, and seems to believe he has some sort of ownership over this article.

Additionally, he has taken to deleting warning notices placed on his user talk page, apparently in an attempt to hide his bad behavior. besiegedtalk 23:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. I've blocked Andrewm19912 for three days (not just for edit-warring) and semi-protected the article. At least a couple of the IPs were edit-warring as well, everyone was screaming vandalism at everyone else, and I don't know enough about the subject to even understand what the dispute was about. I suspect that at least some of the IPs are making constructive edits, but the article is going to have to limp along without all of them for the period of protection, even though there aren't that many auto-confirmed accounts editing the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! The murkiness of the situation is why I provided so many diffs (more than normally needed, I know), because while I was dead certain there was an edit-war going on, I, too, couldn't really figure out what the whole dispute was over. besiegedtalk 23:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

User:62.168.13.98 reported by User:Yopie (Result: 2 weeks)[edit]

Page
Czech