Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive226

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Islam90 reported by User:Jeff3000 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Template:Babism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Islam90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: 23:37, October 15, 2013 UTC

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 16:05, October 16, 2013 UTC
  2. 17:24, October 16, 2013‎ UTC
  3. 22:52, October 16, 2013‎ UTC
  4. 23:48, October 16, 2013 UTC

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Original warning related to general Wikipedia principles of edit warring on another page 22:19, October 15, 2013 UTC. More statements regarding Wikipedia general practice about disagreements 01:59, October 16, 2013 UTC. Specific warning about 3rr on the article of issue 23:19, October 16, 2013 UTC

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: On the talk page, [1] and multiple times asking him to come to the talk page [2], [3]

Comments: Multiple editors have asked the editor to bring up his concerns on the talk page, but he has refused. I don't know why, but he just ignores requests to bring any discussion, but just reverts -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Ring Cinema reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: 1 week)[edit]

Page: Titanic (1997 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ring Cinema (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [4] (Plot summary does not contain the disputed phrase "decide to")

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [5] - Revision as of 06:42, 16 October 2013
  2. [6] - Revision as of 00:46, 17 October 2013
  3. [7] - Revision as of 02:28, 17 October 2013]
  4. [8] - Latest revision as of 04:48, 17 October 2013 ]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [10]. I would also note that after this 3RR report was filed, two completely independent, unsolicited editors joined the discussion and agreed that the disputed phrase "decide to" is inappropriate.

Comments:
He makes a self-serving claim that his fourth edit, already a sign of edit-warring, was "returning to the status quo before the bold edit that is under discussion." As the "Previous version" diff above shows, that is factually and concretely untrue: The Plot summary in "Previous version" does not include his contentious edit, the phrase "decide to".

The ironic thing is that he's edit-warring over a one-word a piece of objectively poor writing that any writing teacher would instantly recognize.--Tenebrae (talk) 05:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Tenebrae is the offender here, assuming without reason that he can ignore the correct procedure of BRD. After his bold edit was reverted, he restored it, contrary to policy. Discussion is ongoing but, per the policy, the reversion stays in place. I am simply restoring the status quo while the discussion is ongoing, and that is correct. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, as the "Previous version" diff shows, I restored RIng Cinema's edit to that status quo, and rather than discuss, he reverted to his own version. Anyone can look up the diffs and see which of us is telling the truth. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Tenebrae has his facts wrong.. I am simply trying to maintain the status quo while the discussion continues. He is trying to do something else and it's not about following the policy. Is he actually asking us to believe that I somehow reverted to a different edit than the one I want to retain? If he's trying to say that we are in agreement that the status quo should be maintained during discussion, then we agree that my last revert was correct.. No further action is necessary. --Ring Cinema (talk) 11:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, this is a first: I've never heard of a person being reported for 3RR being able to say, "No, I'm unilaterally dismissing the case, even though I'm not an admin and even though I'm the one being accused of 3RR." Amazing.
The fact is, the status quo was the version last edited by User:Flyer22, as the diff show. That status quo version did not have the disputed phrase "decide to" in the plot summary. So Ring Cinema is blatantly, badly lying. Anyone can see the diff for him- or herself. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
The first diff above is not a revert, so apparently this complaint is incorrect. It would be good if Tenebrae would follow the BRD policy but at the moment it's a moot point. (As a side note, Tenebrae's version of events is not plausible. He made a bold edit and I wanted to return to the status quo during the discussion. He is now apparently denying that he made a change at the same time trying to claim that I reverted his change. To be clear, I never reverted Flyer22, even if Tenebrae has tried to produce a diff that makes it appear that I did.) --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay. I'm going to have to list this out.
  1. BRD is not a policy, it is an essay suggesting one way to make improvements to an article. BRD does not give you the right to keep removing or re-inserting material because someone isn't discussing on the talk page, nor does it say anything about which version of the article is preferred or gets to hang around during the discussion or lack thereof.
  2. "Restoring the status quo" is not an excuse for edit warring regardless of who is "right". The only exceptions to 3RR are listed at WP:3RRNO.
  3. That first diff ([11]) is indeed a revert, as Tenebrae (t c) removed "decide to" in this edit. The first diff shows that text being re-added, ergo, it is a revert.
  4. There is a fifth revert: [12]. Ring Cinema (t c), that edit is a revert of Flyer22 (t c), who moved the "After braving several obstacles" clause to its location at the start of the second paragraph you rewrote with this edit, and your rewrite removed it.
Given all of this, plus your extensive history of edit warring noted via your block log, Ring Cinema (t c) is Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week for edit warring in violation of 3RR. —Darkwind (talk) 05:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

User:121.218.61.142 reported by User:Dougweller (Result: 31 hours)[edit]

Page
Indigenous peoples of the Americas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
121.218.61.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 10:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC) ""
  2. 23:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 577415863 by Dbrodbeck (talk) Earlier revised due to pro-Chinese racism. Not adequate enough explanation."
  3. 01:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 577503909 by Dbrodbeck (talk) I have please read it. Stop reverting to the irrelevant Chinese edit."
  4. 08:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 577530994 by Dougweller (talk) "misrepresented"No. Sources clearly say they are not related to asians at all."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 05:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Indigenous people of the Americas. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

IP started a discussion on the talk page but carried on editing and has made clear they will evade any block (the IP says ban but clearly means block). Dougweller (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

To quote the IP:"Please refrain from trying to ban me without discussing it with me. I'll just get around it." And when I said we don't ban IPs, "You are now dodging the argument and arguing semantics block, ban. I will get around it." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talkcontribs) 09:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. —Darkwind (talk) 05:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

User:AngBent reported by User:Jingiby (Result: 72 hours)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [13]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [14]
  2. [15]
  3. [16]
  4. [17]
  5. [18]
  6. [19]

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

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Avraam_Benaroya#Disruptive_editing

Comments:

For more than one year AngBent has vandalized this article repeatedly and deniyng even the fact that Benaroya was born in Bulgaria. He has warring despite in support of that fact, there were provided more than ten reiable sources. Now he keeps deleting information and facts about the life of Benaroya, that links him to Bulgarian socialist movement and even he played the key role by in the foundation of the Greek Communist Party. Deleted by him information is supported with nearly ten reliable sources. Moreover, he refuses any reasonable dialogue on the talk-page or some kind of compromise. Jingiby (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Not a 3RR violation, but a slow edit war is still an edit war. Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hoursDarkwind (talk) 05:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Datu Dong reported by User:Ugog Nizdast (Result: Topic Ban)[edit]

Page
Abortion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Datu Dong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC) "how often to state this until everyone gets it, daaaammmmnnnnnn"
  2. 10:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC) (Redacted)
  3. 12:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC) (Redacted)
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 10:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Abortion. (TW)"
  2. 13:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC) "/* ANI notice October 2013 */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

First reported here and was recommended to this noticeboard. User:Datu Dong has violated 3RR on an article which has the 1RR (Wikipedia:GS#Abortion) with blatantly obvious POV edits. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Topic banned Already on ANI thread.--v/r - TP 14:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Uscbubblegirl reported by User:Paulmcdonald (Result: Indef)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: revision history

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. (cur | prev) 09:00, October 17, 2013‎ Uscbubblegirl (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (56,470 bytes) (+53,118)‎ . . (→‎Career) (rollback: 1 edit | undo | thank) (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism)
  2. (cur | prev) 18:15, October 16, 2013‎ RFD (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (3,352 bytes) (-1,356)‎ . . (revert to ucsbubblegirl citations were removed) (undo | thank)
  3. (cur | prev) 18:05, October 16, 2013‎ 99.191.56.185 (talk | block)‎ . . (4,708 bytes) (+1,356)‎ . . (Undid revision 577494344 by RFD (talk)) (undo)
  4. (cur | prev) 17:50, October 16, 2013‎ Uscbubblegirl (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (3,352 bytes) (+35)‎ . . (→‎Education) (undo | thank)
  5. (cur | prev) 17:49, October 16, 2013‎ RFD (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (3,317 bytes) (-1,356)‎ . . (revert to rfd citations removed-please take this to talk page blp concerns) (undo | thanked)
  6. (cur | prev) 17:47, October 16, 2013‎ Uscbubblegirl (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (4,673 bytes) (+191)‎ . . (→‎Career) (undo | thank)
  7. (cur | prev) 17:39, October 16, 2013‎ Uscbubblegirl (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (4,482 bytes) (+498)‎ . . (→‎Career) (undo | thank)
  8. (cur | prev) 17:36, October 16, 2013‎ Uscbubblegirl (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (3,984 bytes) (+667)‎ . . (→‎Career) (undo | thank)
  9. (cur | prev) 17:28, October 16, 2013‎ RFD (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (3,317 bytes) (-496)‎ . . (revert to paulmcdonald citations were removed/blp concerns) (undo | thank)
  10. (cur | prev) 17:24, October 16, 2013‎ Uscbubblegirl (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (3,813 bytes) (+1,117)‎ . . (→‎Career) (undo | thank) (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism)
  11. (cur | prev) 17:20, October 16, 2013‎ Uscbubblegirl (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (2,696 bytes) (-621)‎ . . (→‎Career) (undo | thank)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Uscbubblegirl#User talk:Uscbubblegirl

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See notes in article history

Comments:
Another user (RFD) has attempted to move forward on a conversation on the issue and has not met with success. I believe that the editor may be new and may be unfamilair with Wikipedia policies so I ask that a neutral third party look this over. I was involved in an AFD and some editing previously on the article so I don't really consider myself "neutral" at this point.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Uscbubblegirl had removed some cited material about Aaron Jack who had served in the Kansas Legislature and replaced it with uncited material. I was concerned about BLP and COI issues. Apparently Aaron Jack is controversial in Kansas. I did make the attempt to have Uscbubblegirl communicate any concerns and got no where. I had posted a Welcome template on Uscbubblegirl's talk page. For my part it was not an edit war there was BLP/COI concerns. Thank you-RFD (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
She also added huge honking swaths of copyrighted material which were so enormous as to constitute a WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV problem, as well as violating WP:NOT#WEBHOST, since we are not here to host a reprint of a lengthy ideological rant by the subject in the article about him. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
User:Uscbubblegirl now states that she is Aaron Jack's attorney and "My client will sue you if you block our truthful edits to Aaron Jack's wiki page." I hope that a different admin will judge whether this calls for a block under WP:No legal threats. My involvement so far is merely to suggest to Uscbubblegirl that she might avoid a block by agreeing to step back. The material that might be controversial is from this May 2013 article in the Topeka Capital-Journal, which says "Agency overhaul runs afoul; critics say Jack abused his authority." Uscbubblegirl has stated "You are choosing to highlight a defamatory political "hit piece" article and citing it as if it is an objective news article." At first sight, the Topeka Capital-Journal seems to be a reliable source and their story (by Tim Carpenter) is based on interviews of Aaron Jack himself and other named political figures. EdJohnston (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked indef for making legal threats. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Timbouctou reported by User:Shokatz (Result: Both 24h)[edit]

Page
Boro Primorac (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Timbouctou (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] Calling upon WP:OPENPARA despite the fact the mentioned country did not exist and the common practice is to label notable personalities born on territory of modern-day Bosnia and Herzegovina by their ethnic affiliation (example Blaž Slišković, Miodrag Medan, etc.)
  2. [23]
  3. [24] Completely ignoring/interpretating WP:OPENPARA as it suits him
  4. [25] Once more

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:Timbouctou#Boro_Primorac and also in edit notes on Boro Primorac.

Comments:

Whoever is going to handle this report be advised that this user is currently in a argument conflict with me on Talk:Croats and Talk:Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It all started with the said user reverting me [27] and calling upon WP:COMMONNAME despite the name of the article (Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina) refuting his argumentation. He then proceeded to request renaming of that same article so it can suit his agenda, you can see him saying that it should be renamed [28] after I pointed out the current situation is refuting him and then the next day him petition for request [29]. Now why I am elaborating so much...well considering all this and how stubborn this user is and considering he is willing to steep so low to request a name change of one article so it can serve him as an argument on another I am not so convinced that he followed me to Boro Primorac just to provoke another argument on a very similar issue. Not to mention obviously that he broke 3RR on that same article as I have shown you here, claiming he is reverting my vandalism. In any case I hope me elaborating gives a much more wider picture of what is happening here. Personally I believe this user has broken much more than just 3RR. Shokatz (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

This first started a few days ago at Talk:Croats#Bosnian Croats from Herzegovina where User:Shokatz opposed and reverted edits by a third user [30], [31]. This was regarding the usage of the term Bosnian Croats. I reverted his revert [32] after which he started the topic at Talk:Croats, sarcastically thanking and mocking me and User:DIREKTOR for our edits [33]. He also left a similar message at my talk page [34]. The discussion at Talk:Croats which ensued was over the use of the said term (with me taking position that "Bosnian Croat" is really commonly used per WP:COMMONNAME and Shokatz arguing the opposite).
A few days after that, believing my position was right, I started a move discussion at Talk:Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina to gauge consensus about moving the article to the more commonly used term for the article topic. Shokatz did not like that so the discussion soon turned into a stream of his insults directed at me and my apparent "POV-pushing agenda" (just read the discussion.) In parallel the discussion at Talk:Croats continued. He called my move request "an escapade" and that I was "getting so low to request a move of one article so I can satisfy my POV-pushing agenda on another article [which is a complete embarrassment."]. Upon warning him that what he was saying constituted personal attacks [35] his response to me was to "stop whining about something I brought upon yourself." [36]. After yet another warning [37] he replied that because of "requesting a name change so it can suit my POV-pushing agenda" I was "shameless."[38] and that I was "insisting on ridiculous WP:COMMONNAME argumentation" [39].
Meanwhile the other move request discussion at Talk:Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina took a similar turn, with him accusing me of " dishonest and POV-pushing moves" [40] and went on to say that he had a problem with my alleged "duplicitous, POV-pushing bullying" [41]. I explained my position in both discussion multiple times, but all I got from Shokatz was a stream of insults and paranoid rants about my alleged "POV-pushing", even though I have no clue what POV he is talking about.
And in the middle of all this, an edit-war started at Boro Primorac, a Bosnian football manager. The dispute was over the opening paragraph - Shokatz believes that it is okay to keep unreferenced information about living people's ethnicity (as opposed to nationality) in the opening sentence, even in cases when their ethnicity is not relevant for their notability. Now this is obviously against WP:OPENPARA and is also against long-standing consensus at WP:FOOTY that Yugoslav footballers are supposed to be designated per their country of birth in opening statements (not their ethnicity). Shokatz claims this is not true but it is in fact quite the opposite, as a look at many of Bosnian footballers' articles will show. So we both reverted each other 3 times and then he raised this at my talk page and started threatening with reporting me [42]. After my reply, he said he would proceed with the report as I was "unwilling to budge" [43] I listed everything that was wrong with what he was insisting on including in Primorac article, warned him that he too had violated 3:RR and asked him not to contact me again [44].
And here we are. Perhaps I should have brought this matter here myself as soon as he started with personal attacks over at Talk:Croats and Talk:Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina. But I did not. In any case, I do not plan to apologize for keeping entirely unreferenced and irrelevant information out of the opening paragraph in a biography of a living person. His behaviour at both talk pages mentioned above was disruptive and abusive, and his edits at Boro Primorac were vandalism by definition. Plus, he edit-warred to keep the vandalism in. Timbouctou (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Imo it'd be silly if someone actually got sanctioned over this... -- Director (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I think his name-calling and insults at Talk:Croats and Talk:Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in addition to his trolling at my talk page [45] and 3:RR violation are all reasons for some sanction. Since when do we condone personal attacks in talk page discussions and since when is it OK to describe other editor's position as "low", "shameless", "whining", etc.? The guy offered zero policy-based arguments in both discussions. Since when is this kind of behaviour seen as lovely jubbly? Timbouctou (talk) 23:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Not jubbly, but the guy's still kind of new to our glorious project, and he hasn't been warned either. Imo a "Cut It Out!" template on the talkpage. -- Director (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry but please do not patronize me. I am "big boy" and I am well capable of taking responsibility for my actions. If I did anything wrong I will gladly suffer the consequences. But this is not about me. It's not me who broke the 3RR rule, it's not me who requested a name change of another article to reach a consensus on another as the the user in question here stated....who does that anyway?!? And I am sorry but commenting on someone's behavior (as I did on Timbouctou's) is not name-calling. I believe Wikipedia itself has a short but informative article on this (Name calling). Now let's get back to the issue at hand - blatant 3RR violation by Timbouctou. Shokatz (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
It was not my intent to appear patronizing, I apologize. -- Director (talk) 05:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. This was clearly an edit war, regardless of who made how many reverts each. Timbouctou (t c), you have previously been sanctioned under WP:ARBMAC, so you should know better. Shokatz (t c), I don't see that you have been officially warned of the discretionary sanctions on Balkans-related articles, so I will post that to your talk page. For both of you, this should serve as a reminder that further disruption on Balkans-related articles, by either of you, may result in sanctions. —Darkwind (talk) 05:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Ah unfortunate, but a predictable outcome for a report like this :( -- Director (talk) 08:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Werieth reported by User:Hzh (Result: Mixed result - Page Protected)[edit]

Page: Titus Andronicus (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: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [46]
  2. [47]
  3. [48]
  4. [49]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51]

Comments:

User is engaging in edit warring, reverting citing copyright violation when it has been already shown by another user that there is no clear violation per WP:3RRNO #5 as discussed here User talk:Werieth#Titus Andronicus. Hzh (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I have already told them to file a WP:NFCR, these files are replaceable, not easily but replaceable. I have told them to file a review so that others can re-explain it, but of course WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:ILIKEIT seems to override policy (I cited WP:NFCC#1,3,8 for removal) which this is a clear case of being replaceable and not meeting the second clause of #8 Werieth (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether you think there is a copyright violation, the guidelines on 3RR states that it needs to be unquestionable a copyright violation before you can justifiably violate the 3RR rule, something you chose to ignore. I should state that this is not my dispute, just a passing observer alarmed by the number of images you have removed over the protest of other users. Hzh (talk) 12:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I removed 5 files and left about 20 others, Please note I did not invoke copyright violation, I invoked a violation of WP:NFCC Specifically replaceability, minimal usage, and to a lesser degree contextual significance (#1,3,8). You have done nothing other than provide ample evidence you are clueless in regards to our non-free content policy. #1 alone is grounds for removal and exemption from 3RR (we dont have non-free images of living people for example). I also cited Romeo and Juliet which is a similar work and is a FA. Guess what? it has zero non-free files out of a total of almost 40 on the page. Werieth (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
PS why havent you filed a review at WP:NFCR? Oh wait I know why, because you know you will just be told the same thing I am telling you. Werieth (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
As stated, not my dispute. Please read WP:3RRNO #5 again before claiming exemption from the 3RR rule. Hzh (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I have, files that are clearly replaceable, fail #1, and shouldnt be in the article. Werieth (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Yep. Looks like a WP:3RRNO violation to me. Werieth, if you think the discussion should have been raised in a different forum, the onus was on you to take it to that forum before resorting to 3RR. NickCT (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Mixed result The result is really that those who restore content that possibly violates the copyright of someone else are at fault in an edit war where a reasonable argument is made that a copyright violation exists. Werieth made such an argument. I've reviewed the article and I am inclined to agree to some respects that NFCC #1 was violated. I've protected the page and intend to layout why everyone managed to escape a block.--v/r - TP 16:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
You might also mark the discussion where Werieth made his reasonable argument on the article talk page. I cannot find it. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
If you're asking what's worse, restoring copyrighted material is clearly worse than edit warring. So, you're better off if I just close this case as I have.--v/r - TP 17:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
re " those who restore content that possibly violates the copyright" - Can you cite policy please. As far as I see it the standard is that material must be "clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC)" per WP:3RRNO. Can you point to the policy where the language states that material that "possibly violates the copyright" should be removed? NickCT (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
WP:NFCC, "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created."--v/r - TP 18:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
It does not show that it supersedes the 3RR rule. WP:3RRNO clearly states that unless there is unquestionably a copyright violation, and it should be established as a violation first before an exemption to the 3RR rule can be claimed. That does imply that the 3RR rule is more important when there are differing opinions, otherwise why would the word "unquestionably" be there? Hzh (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I've reviewed it and I think the copyright complaint is valid and meets the WP:3RR exemption. That's why uninvolved administrators make the determination and not editors in the dispute. I've outlined why I feel it was more prudent to protect the page and why I feel Werieth's complaint is valid on the article talk page. As far as I'm concerned, this 3RR case is over. Unless you're volunteering yourself, Teddy, and Bertaut for a block for restoring copyrighted materials?--v/r - TP 19:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
If there is a dispute over WP:NFCC, then there are always differing opinions. By User:Hzh's arguing, this would mean that WP:3RRNO §5 never applies. That is obviously not what the person who wrote that line meant. No opinion on whether the material unquestionably violates WP:NFCC as I haven't read the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
In this case there are more than 2 editors involved (4 in fact, 3 of whom are opposed to Werieth's action), when there are multiple objections, I would take it as a clear case of no "unquestionable" violation. The wording of WP:3RRNO appears to me to be a caution against indiscriminate removal of content suspected to be of copyright violation when there are strong objections. Hzh (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
@T - Re "Note that it is the duty of users ...... cannot be created." - Ok. Fair enough. You know, I've just reread some of the talkpage stuff, and I don't see that the editors trying to add the content ever attempted to offer a valid rationale. If they had, their WP:3RRNO argument might be more reasonable. I'd still tend to agree with Hzh in his assertion that WP:3RRNO's requirement that violations be "clear" and "unquestionable" probably supersedes the WP:NFCC argument, especially since so many have now questioned whether it was a clear violation. re "Unless you're volunteering yourself, Teddy, and Bertaut for a block for restoring copyrighted materials?" - That seems a tad threatening, no? Hzh's dissent is reasonable, whether or not it's right. You shouldn't be threatening with a block for that. NickCT (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
It probably is a bit threatening, sorry. I get a tad annoyed when folks try to see sanctions on others when their own hands are just as dirty. I believe that 3 editors teaming up to edit war is still edit warring.--v/r - TP 00:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
@TP - Ah well..... I guess the wikidrama gets to us all now and then. NickCT (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Please also note I never invoked an issue of copyright, I invoked a clear violation of WP:NFCC specifically the replaceability clause, which these files clearly violate. Please note that I am not saying that text can completely replace them, but that free versions of these files can be created. See my repeated question on the talk page. So far the only response has been cricket chirps. To invoke WP:3RRNO all that needs to be established is that the files unquestionably violates the non-free content policy something that I have done, given the facts that this particular play is over 400 years old and outside of every know copyright law in existence, creating free images based off of it is fairly easy, ask an artist, request an image or two from some group already preforming it to be released under a free license, or to get some actors/actresses together and stage a scene or two for photos is do able. All three of those methods would produce a freely licensable image, which means that the files in question fail WP:NFCC#1 by a wide margin. Making a WP:3RRNO#5 defense 100% correct. Werieth (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm going to have to agree that not all of the images that Werieth was removing were necessary clear copyright problems to evoke the 3RR exemption. I don't believe any of them are appropriate, but there's some borderline and possibly improvement (the fact that the stage productions actually tried to similar blood, for example). This needed to go to discussion, and I don't think, even as a strong supporter of NFCC, that this case is a clear exemption. --MASEM (t) 19:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

User:SoapFan12 and User:CloudKade11 reported by User:Livelikemusic (Result: Both editors blocked)[edit]

Page: Steffy Forrester (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SoapFan12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
CloudKade11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [52]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [53] [54]
  2. [55] [56]
  3. [57] [58]
  4. [59] [60]
  5. [61]

Comments:
Both SoapFan12 and CloudKade11 were involved in an edit-war over the character page of Steffy Forrester, which has gone on now for about 48 hours. Neither chose to take it to each other's talk pages, or the actual page's talk page to discuss. Instead, they involved themselves in an editing-war. Both users, as experienced editors of significant lengths of time, should know how to handle such situations to avoid things such as edit-warring. I was not sure if both users could be put into one category, so I included both of their edits back-to-back to avoid having to post the same post twice. However, if that is what's needed, I will do so. CloudKade also seems to have a bad history of edit-warring, given the discussions on their talk page. livelikemusic my talk page! 19:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Both editors blocked.--v/r - TP 19:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

User:162.129.251.72 reported by User:CaffeinAddict (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Jack Andraka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 162.129.251.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [62]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 21:38, 18 October 2013‎ CaffeinAddict (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,689 bytes) (-4,043)‎ . . (Undid revision 577743863 by 162.129.251.72 (talk) Clearly POV edit, see talk page) (undo)
  2. (cur | prev) 18:15, 18 October 2013‎ 162.129.251.72 (talk)‎ . . (18,732 bytes) (+4,043)‎ . . (→‎Cancer detection method) (undo)
  3. (cur | prev) 18:13, 18 October 2013‎ Jarkeld (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,689 bytes) (-4,042)‎ . . (Undid revision 577742851 by 162.129.251.72 (talk) contains POV, synthesis and various other errors) (undo | thank)
  4. (cur | prev) 18:09, 18 October 2013‎ 162.129.251.72 (talk)‎ . . (18,731 bytes) (+4,042)‎ . . (→‎Cancer detection method) (undo)
  5. (cur | prev) 18:06, 18 October 2013‎ Jarkeld (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,689 bytes) (-4,000)‎ . . (Undid revision 577741415 by 162.129.251.72 (talk) see: WP:BRD) (undo | thank)
  6. (cur | prev) 17:59, 18 October 2013‎ 162.129.251.72 (talk)‎ . . (18,689 bytes) (+4,000)‎ . . (→‎Cancer detection method) (undo)
  7. (cur | prev) 17:55, 18 October 2013‎ Jarkeld (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,689 bytes) (-4,000)‎ . . (Undid revision 577740063 by 162.129.251.72 (talk) rv: possible POV, Synthesis. Please discuss before readding) (undo | thank)
  8. (cur | prev) 17:49, 18 October 2013‎ 162.129.251.72 (talk)‎ . . (18,689 bytes) (+4,000)‎ . . (→‎Cancer detection method) (undo)
  9. (cur | prev) 17:38, 18 October 2013‎ CaffeinAddict (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,689 bytes) (-4,245)‎ . . (Undid revision 577736419 by 162.129.251.72 (talk) Possible POV edit, with suspicious sourcing.) (undo)
  10. (cur | prev) 17:17, 18 October 2013‎ 162.129.251.72 (talk)‎ . . (18,934 bytes) (+4,245)‎ . . (→‎Cancer detection method) (undo)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [64]

Comments:
POV editing, keeps being reverted, there have been 5 reverts today. CaffeinAddict (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Kingfrogger666 reported by User:88.104.25.210 (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Clare Devine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kingfrogger666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [65]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [66]
  2. [67]
  3. [68]
  4. [69]

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

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

Comments:

    (cur | prev) 04:38, 19 October 2013‎ 88.104.25.210 (talk)‎ . . (7,112 bytes) (-22,452)‎ . . (Undid revision 577803400 by Kingfrogger666 (talk)) (undo)
    (cur | prev) 04:37, 19 October 2013‎ Kingfrogger666 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (29,564 bytes) (+22,452)‎ . . (Undid revision 577803360 by 88.104.25.210 (talk)) (undo)
    (cur | prev) 04:36, 19 October 2013‎ 88.104.25.210 (talk)‎ . . (7,112 bytes) (-22,452)‎ . . (Undid revision 577803285 by Kingfrogger666 (talk)) (undo)
    (cur | prev) 04:35, 19 October 2013‎ Kingfrogger666 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (29,564 bytes) (+22,452)‎ . . (Undid revision 577803061 by 88.104.25.210 (talk)) (undo)
    (cur | prev) 04:32, 19 October 2013‎ 88.104.25.210 (talk)‎ . . (7,112 bytes) (-22,452)‎ . . (Undid revision 577802959 by Kingfrogger666 (talk)) (undo)
    (cur | prev) 04:30, 19 October 2013‎ Kingfrogger666 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (29,564 bytes) (+22,452)‎ . . (Undid revision 577802897 by 88.104.25.210 (talk)) (undo)
    (cur | prev) 04:29, 19 October 2013‎ 88.104.25.210 (talk)‎ . . (7,112 bytes) (-22,452)‎ . . (Undid revision 577802109 by Kingfrogger666 (talk)) (undo)
    (cur | prev) 04:18, 19 October 2013‎ Kingfrogger666 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (29,564 bytes) (+22,452)‎ . . (Undid revision 577801561 by 88.104.25.210 (talk)) (undo)
    (cur | prev) 04:16, 19 October 2013‎ 88.104.25.210 (talk)‎ . . (7,112 bytes) (-22,453)‎ . . (undo)
    (cur | prev) 04:15, 19 October 2013‎ Kingfrogger666 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (29,565 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (undo)
    (cur | prev) 04:11, 19 October 2013‎ Kingfrogger666 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (29,564 bytes) (+22,452)‎ . . (Undid revision 577801561 by 88.104.25.210 (talk)) (undo)
    (cur | prev) 04:10, 19 October 2013‎ 88.104.25.210 (talk)‎ . . (7,112 bytes) (-22,452)‎ . . (refs or it didn't happen. WP:V, etc; come on fam; you know the drill. WP:BURDEN -give refs, or don't add it. Simple. Undid revision 577801199 by Kingfrogger666 (talk)) (undo)

88.104.25.210 (talk) 04:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Anon has been blanking this and other articles. Anon and not the editor should be blocked. A simple examination of the edit history of the article in question will show this.
I'm counting 15 reverts in just over two hours. Anon made claims that WP:BURDEN was sufficient reason to edit war and blank. However it's clear that the material may be challenged, with {{citation needed}}, not by blanking material. The only reason I became involved was because the accused editor posted to the wrong long location and I noticed the comments there. I have no interest in the subject or either editor. At this point, I'm going to request a content dispute lock on the article and then wash my hands of this mess. Perhaps a length block for the anon and a few hours for registered editor for not following WP:BRD. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Now also at WP:ANI, and a matching AN/3RR report below ES&L 11:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Result: Article protected by User:Calmer Waters. EdJohnston (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
That's not a result. It's cop-out. Anon was behaving inappropriately and the reported editor was as well. What's just happened is that you have condoned the bad behaviour first by not acting quickly and then by saying "it's OK, I'll lock the page so on one can edit it". Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Abhishek191288 reported by User:Superfast1111 (Result: protected)[edit]

Page
Pushpak Express (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Abhishek191288 (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. [diff]
  2. [diff]
  3. [diff]
  4. [diff]
He has put a note on my talk page.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Yes. No agreement reached.

Comments:


We have had disputes in the past. I am trying my best to understand what he is upset about. But he has only been adding reading policies as his response. I am not convinced even after having read them. And thanks to the reversions am close to the 3RR limit. A little help would be appreciated. Superfast1111 (talk) 07:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

You got some help on the article talk page from @RegentsPark: I'd take their advice to heart because the edit warring on the page by both of you is disruptive, and the "discussion" on the talk page is not constructive.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Neither of you have broken 3RR yet, but you both have a significant history of edit warring. I have protected the article for 2 days - take this time to have a productive discussion on the talk page, or consider opening a thread at DRN. Also, next time you make a report here, please actually include the diffs requested. —Darkwind (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

User:88.104.25.210 reported by User:Dream Focus (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Clare Devine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 88.104.25.210 (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. [71]
  2. [72]
  3. [73]
  4. [74]
  5. [75]
  6. [76]
  7. [77]
  8. [78]

Comments:Rude IP address who only started editing today, already edit warring all over the place.
Dream Focus 09:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Is this not related to the entry 2 above this one? ES&L 09:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
...and now also at WP:ANI ES&L 11:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Again, that's not a result. When two registered users report an anon for inappropriate behaviour, and the "solution" is to lock the page, the message sent to all anons (and this one in specific) is clear: they can do whatever they want as long as they go big. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

User:76.112.8.146 reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: protected)[edit]

Page: Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.112.8.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: See notes after diffs

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [79] - 01:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC) restoration of insignificant content to lead that made treatment of the response to the organisation non-NPOV
  2. [80] - "Undid revision 577652524 by AussieLegend"
  3. [81] - restoration of category that had been removed because article is already in a subcat.
  4. [82] - restoration of reworded version of content mentioned in diff #1
  5. [83] - Restoration (again) of parent cat and completely changing note in the categories section

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [84][85]

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Attempts are in all sections except "Affiliated international legal entities".

Comments:
Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is an article that is periodically the subject of some emotional and POV editing, althoughit has been relatively stable for months. On 18 October User:76.112.8.146 changed that by editing the lead of the article in such a way that it introduced a negative POV into what should be a summary of the main points in the article.[86] Although it is well documented in the article, all mention of support for the organisation was removed from the lead and the opoosition was supplemented with a cherry-picked section from the "Government response" section which, in the great scheme of things is not all that significant. Because of this I reverted the edits but the content was restored and a citation needed tag was added to the content that was documented further in the article.[87] Since this time, the IP has persistently reverted changes to the article as shown in the diffs above. After the IP added a category of which the article was already a memeber of a subcat,[88] I noticed that there were other categories that needed to be removed and did so.[89] Category:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is a subcat of all of the categories that were removed. Meanwhile, the content that the IP had restored was removed by another editor. Subsequently, the IP restored a reworded, but still unnecessary, version of the content that he had previously added to the lead (there had been some rewording of the section by other editors but this seems appropriate), as well as the parent category.[90] Attempts to explain why the category had been removed[91][92] have been fruitless and the IP has again restored the category, as well as completely changing the note that I had left in the article for the benefit of those intending to add more categories, making it vague and useless.[93] The IP has even tried removing a category from Category:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society as a way of forcing his edits into the article.[94] Of the five editors who have edited the article since the IP first appeared, only the IP has been unable to collaborate constructively. --AussieLegend () 15:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Hang on, I make good faith edits and you warn. I edit, you warn. I have been asking for help and you keep layering on the warning and reversions. I think it's funny that I keep trying to discuss it, following the BRD policy and everytime you disagree with my edit, you revert and warn. I'm surely not as good at you as reporting and documenting but anyone following your trail can see you've been doing the exact same things you're warning me of. I'm trying to remove POV from the article through discussion, collaboration and edits. You seem to be protecting it through templates, adding sarcastic looking welcome templates to my talk page, adding "tit for tat" and "3rr" warnings after doing the exact same thing yourself. I've read every warning you posted, double checked the policies and am trying to abide by them. But you MUST allow for your personal interest POV to decline in that article. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
And in regard to the category, sub categories of subcategories were created to attempt to remove the phrase "Eco-terorism" from showing on the categories at the bottom of the page, to the point where now they had invented a category solely for SSCS with nothing else in it so that they can argue "well it's already in a sub cat of a sub cat there's no need to put the eco-terrorim cat there any longer". Which does nothing for a reader of the article. Other admin have weighed in on the talk page that it should be there but that was ignored. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
There have been plenty of attempts to engage you on the article's talk page, your talk page and even my talk page. As I've just explained to you on my talk page,[95] removing Category:Eco-terrorism from the article has nothing to do with hiding "Eco-terrorism". The category is not required because it's already in a subcat. Even if Category:Organizations accused of piracy did not exist, Category:Eco-terrorism would not be on the article page because Category:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society would be a subcat of Category:Eco-terrorism. As for the "tit for tat" claim, that's disingenuous of you. As you well know, it was you who was adding "tit for tat" warnings, something I told you on your talk page.[96] Four minutes after I warned you,[97] you warned me.[98] Shortly after you received a later warning,[99] you again warned me.[100] And so on. This has not been the case with any of the other involved editors. And just an FYI, I was required to notify you of this discussion (it says so in big red letters at the top of this page). Removing that notification claiming that it was a personal attack is highly inappropriate.[101] --AussieLegend () 15:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
"it was you who was adding "tit for tat" warnings, something I told you on your talk page" Heh, is it worth me pointing out the obvious at this point? I think the break'll do us both some good. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. I've locked the article for three days. Hopefully, the discussion on the talk page can be more constructive than it has been thus far. If not, dispute resolution should be the next step. I don't expect the edit war to continue after the lock expires. If it does, editors may be blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you sir. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
The problem at the moment is that, despite numerous posts here, his talk page, my talk page and the article's talk page, the IP is persistent in the belief that categorisation "hides" things and I don't seem to be able to make him understand that it doesn't, even after directing him to WP:CAT. He's even in denial about suppressing content in the article, " I don't believe I suppressed anything" were his very words.[102] This despite the fact that his very first edits to the article suppressed documented content in the article.[103] Perhaps you can explain categorisation to him, because I've had no luck. I'm pretty much done at this point. --AussieLegend () 18:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Good example, and keep reading to the present. Through discussion and collaboration I (and we) re-edited that positive statement to make more sense. It's now more grammatically correct and still just as positive. And now you say that I am suppressing the positive side of SSCS. Take a look at the current iteration of that sentence and tell me I am suppressing it. This is why I am feeling attacked. Even after coming to a consensus, Aussie is going to the beginning of the editing process and attacking my character instead of seeing the collaboration, recognizing that and continuing to more collaboration. I am trying right now to understand his position and he continues to insult my character on the SSCS talk page. I asked him politely there and on his own talk page to address the issue and to please stop addressing his view of my intelligence and character. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Amshermar reported by User:NeilN (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page
Pubic hair (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Amshermar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 16:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC) "Added image to page"
  2. 00:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC) "Added image to page"
  3. 12:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC) "Added image to page"
  4. 20:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC) "Added image to page"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 16:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Pubic hair. using TW"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

New editor, only edit-warring to add his dick to article (told it was redundant). NeilN talk to me 20:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

First, NeilN, you made me burst out laughing with the "only edit-warring to add his dick to article" text. Second, because of your diff-links above, I just minutes ago noticed that he was changing the image with each edit (so maybe most of his additions are not technically reverts); apparently, he thought that all he had to do was change the image and it would be accepted. Third, editors who never respond to messages left on their talk pages (as though they didn't even know they got the messages or as though they didn't comprehend them), like the editor in question, irk me. Perhaps he didn't see the notifications at the top of his screen? After all, our WP:Notifications system doesn't use that big, yellow (what some describe as orange) bar anymore for registered editors. Flyer22 (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. Since the fourth revert was more than 24 hours after the first, it's not a 3RR issue, and given that this is a brand-new editor, I'm willing to say it's confusion rather than edit warring. I've posed a more thorough welcome to his talk page, let's see if that works. I'll keep an eye on it. —Darkwind (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Flyer22. I think that was an accurate, if somewhat exasperated, comment. Glad I could make you laugh though. I think they count as reverts as the same type of content is being added. It's like if an editor kept adding the same paragraph but changed some of the prepositions each time. Darkwind - no problem, thanks for keeping an on the article. --NeilN talk to me 23:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Exasperated? I didn't mean for it to bother you in that way, or for it to be a pain at all. Sorry about that. Flyer22 (talk) 23:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant my initial comment, the one that had you laughing, was written with a touch of exasperation at the editor. --NeilN talk to me 01:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Just a notice that Amshermar moved on to penis photos on Urinary meatus. Liz Read! Talk! 00:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


User:70.190.253.77 reported by User:MilesMoney (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Fractional reserve banking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 70.190.253.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [104]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [105]
  2. [106]
  3. [107]
  4. [108]
  5. [109]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [110]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [111]

Comments:
User insists that BRD and 3RR do not apply. MilesMoney (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


User:WDGraham reported by User:Ajh1492 (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Atlas (rocket family) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WDGraham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [112]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [113]
  2. [114]
  3. [115]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [116]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [117]

Comments:


Editor is inconsistently operating in conflict with WP:OWN, nor following both WP:BOLD and WP:BRD and instigating a low-level revert war. Bringing it to the attention of an administrator prior to violation of WP:3RR. Good faith attempts have been made by this editor (here and here), but the editor reverts any good faith updates. It seems that the editor is protecting the status quo of a number of poorly written and WP:STUB articles in a potential violation of WP:OWN.

I've reverted the original edit, and once more when the reporting user restored his content rather than participate in the discussion I had started. I'll post a detailed response in a second. --W. D. Graham 09:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I've had a couple of disagreements with the reporting user in the last 24 hours, on two separate but related pages. The first was on Talk:SM-65D Atlas, where I opposed a merger he had suggested and he, out of nowhere, accused me of asserting ownership over the article without any evidence. I reminded him that making accusations without evidence is incivil. This morning I noticed some major changes to another article Atlas (rocket family) which I felt reduced the quality of the article, so I followed WP:BRD and reverted them, posting a detailed explanation on the talk page and notifying the user in question to try and promote a discussion. When he reverted me again I assumed it was a good faith mistake rather than an attempt to start an edit war, so I restored the status quo (my second and final revert) and again asked him to participate in the discussion. I had, and still have, no intention of making further edits to the article until a discussion has taken place. He then joined the discussion but repeated his accusations, again without evidence. I then asked him to be civil and refrain from making further unsubstantiated accusations, took a few minutes to cool down and then replied to the content issues he raised. I am not "revert[ing] any good faith updates" and have certainly not 3RRd - I followed WP:BRD once, and then reverted once more because I thought Ajh1492 had made a good-faith mistake. Had he reverted or edited further without discussion I would not have taken any action. --W. D. Graham 09:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
The editor has been from my first contribution to the article and a properly posted WP:merge of 4 low-quality WP:STUB articles into a single article in keeping with WP:Integrate, immediately rejected out of hand rather rudely - "'Yes, an article on the Atlas as a whole is useful, but we already have it so there's no need to destroy our coverage of individual variants just to create another page doing the same thing." [118]. "'destroy our coverage" as a response to a valid WP:Merge request is rather uncivil, and appears, IMHO, as a violation of WP:OWN. The editor then takes this as a personal affront and immediately goes into a diatribe claiming an "'ad hominem argument, and could be conceived as a personal attack, so I'd suggest you consider retracting it.'" [119]. I then attempt to make some edits on Atlas (rocket family) to meet some of the editor's objections to the merge request. The article in it's original state [120] was evaluated as Start class [121]. My in-progress updates resulted in the following article state [122] prior to the editor performing a wholesale revert of the article [123] which left it in a worse shape than the original state using a method usually reserved to skirt WP:3RR. The editor then continues with the "ad hominem" diatribe in this second article's comments [124]. WP:BRD is not a process used to justify wholesale reverts. Ajh1492 (talk) 10:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I opposed your proposed merger because I didn't think it would improve the encyclopaedia. "Destroy" was perhaps a poor choice of word, but that was my opinion and I expressed it, and I don't think that I was incivil in doing so. By "our" I was referring to the Wikipedia community. And yes, if you accuse somebody of disruptive editing they are probably going to take offence. --W. D. Graham 10:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
That said, I do apologise if my comments caused offence to you - that was certainly not my intention. Can we please try to find some way to move on and resolve this disagreement by discussing the articles and edits, not the editors. --W. D. Graham 10:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this is the right forum for this discussion - I agree there is a disagreement here, but I wouldn't characterise it as an edit war, and I'm the one who is trying to encourage discussion. Mainspace editing has stopped, and I don't think there's been enough time yet for the discussion to take place. I'd like to try and resolve this amicably - Ajh1492 escalated this so quickly that the discussion wasn't given a chance - and if that doesn't happen then we should go through dispute resolution, but I don't see how administrator intervention would benefit the discussion at the moment. --W. D. Graham 10:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Wholesale reverts of good-faith editing efforts without ANY discussion is not good WP etiquette and not in the spirit of WP:BRD. I'm invoking the administrator's review to prevent any WP:3RR violations (which is perfectly acceptable) and what I perceive as a possible WP:OWN issue. The open hostility ("'destroy our coverage" [125]) towards any good-faith editing is disturbing. Ajh1492 (talk) 10:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
You've been assuming bad faith of me from the beginning. I have been trying to engage in a discussion, but you just came back criticising the changes I had made. I provided a detailed explanation of the first revert I made (which was a partial revert - I left your content changes in place, and some of the structural changes - I mostly just put back the table you'd split and moved the recent stuff back to the end of the timeline). It was in no way a "wholescale revert". I posted a clear explanation of this on the talk page, and put a notice on your page about the discussion in the hope that you'd participate. I feel that I acted fully within WP:BRD at this stage, however you reverted my first revert without participating in the discussion which I was trying to start. Fair enough, I shouldn't have reverted you again after that, and I acknowledge that, however I believed you had made a good faith mistake so rather than interpreting your action as edit warring, I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt by removing it and reminding you of WP:BRD. --W. D. Graham 11:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

────────── Unless requested by an uninvolved party, I'm not going to make any further comments in this particular thread as I feel it is going nowhere. There's no edit war and no 3RR violations; I acknowledge that I am partly at fault for the dispute, but there are faults on both sides and I'm willing to accept that and move on. What we need is a calm, civilised discussion of the content issues, not accusations flying back and forth which is what this is turning into. I'm also going to take a 48 hour break from editing starting now because this discussion has got me so wound up that my last couple of comments on the matter have maybe not been as civil as they could have been. Ajh, please can we go back to the article talk page, put aside our differences and try to find a solution to the problem? --W. D. Graham 11:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. WDGraham has reverted twice. The "reverts" listed in this report are links, not diffs, and they show the three reverts of both parties (Ajh1492 has reverted once). I didn't look at anything but this article and this article's talk page, but both parties should not be reacting negatively to each other's comments. As such discussions go, any conduct comments are pretty mild. I agree with WDGraham that the two of you should go back to the talk page and discuss the issues. If you can't resolve them, then use dispute resolution, and this board is not the best place to do that.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


User:Csi.southpark reported by User:AsceticRose (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Jerusalem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Csi.southpark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 14:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 577976191 by Dailycare (talk) Unsourced claim. But I see that this is going to be a problem so I removed everyone."
  2. 04:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 577933296 by Sepsis II (talk) give me a break that is a lie, check the sources and google it for yourself. Stop the vendetta"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

See User_talk:Csi.southpark#1RR_violation_at_Israel_article for some background. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

The article is restricted to 1RR. The user also violated 1RR at Israel article [126] & [127], and then self-reverted. AsceticRosé 17:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I removed something that I wrote. I did this because I realized the having the article say the Jewish people and Samaritans descend from Canaanites is, while true, going to cause problems so I simply removed it. And yes in the process I also removed what someone else added to my edit. But had I left my original comment in place with the other users edit. It would have caused more problems. So I'm sorry that I violated the 24 hour rule, but what would you have had me do. Csi.southpark (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
He has reverted, let it go. Sepsis II (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Sepsis II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csi.southpark (talkcontribs) 19:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


User:Ryulong reported by User:ChrisGualtieri (Result: Withdrawn)[edit]

ChrisGualtieri (t c) has requested to withdraw the report, and there was no particular consensus to take action among the admins who commented. —Darkwind (talk) 04:00, 22 October 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: Dragon Ball (anime) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [128]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [129] Redirecting article @ 15:05, 20 October 2013
  2. [130] Redirecting article @ 16:26, 20 October 2013
  3. [131] Removing content @ 17:23, 20 October 2013
  4. [132] Removed same content @ 17:59, 20 October 2013
  5. [133] Removed another chunk @ 18:11, 20 October 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [134]

Ryulong is continuing to post messages to my talk page after I said I do not want to speak to him. Including reverting my removals of his posts.

  1. [135]
  2. [136] Reminded him to kindly stay off my page.
  3. [137] Response to my 3RR warning. Acknowledged and removed.
  4. [138] Reverting my removal and demanding I speak to him.
  5. [139] Reverting both posts.
  6. [140] Reverting more of the same; his edit summary also accused me of refactoring his edits when I did no such thing.

Comments including talk page: Ryulong has previously redirected the article and it was contested.[141] We are currently in mediation for Ghost in the Shell dispute and I've asked Ryulong to not continue edit warring and redirecting contested pages. And after the issue was raised at Mediation, Ryulong began this edit war redirecting and content removals. During the September redirecting it went to the talk page at Talk:Dragon_Ball_(anime). As I was addressing the "citation needed" templates, Ryulong broke 3RR and I was unable to continue lest I broke 3RR as well. Many citations are off Anime News Network and I managed to do two before he broke 3RR and again removed the material. The issue was touched upon in the mediation prior to his redirect and removals. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri cannot be trusted to discern what does and what does not count as a violation of WP:3RR as he called my edits at Bleach (anime) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (now a redirect) a means to game him into violating 3RR himself when I