Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive251

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Al-Andalusi reported by User:Shrike (Result: decline)[edit]

Page
Operation Protective Edge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Al-Andalusi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 14:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Casualties and losses */ remove opinion and OR" this revert of this edit [1]
  2. 17:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC) "/* top */ partial revert of Irondome's change" revert of this edit [2]


Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 16:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Operation Protective Edge. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

The article is part of WP:ARBPIA and under 1RR. I have asked the user to revert himself. Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

An edit war? Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you going to revert yourself?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
And which edit is that? I'm asking because myself and the rest of the involved editors have not been part of a dispute let alone an "edit war". Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
You made two reverts of two different users.You may undo your last revert [14:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC) and then I will retract this report--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
The last one is in agreement with BRD. I fail to see the issue here. Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
The issue is you made two reverts to WP:ARBPIA article .--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment. Shrike, could you do me the courtesy of examining the 4 cases I cited here? I'm still not certain I understand this rule, but since you do, tell me why (a) those are not examples of what you consider to be edit-warring on the same page (b) if they are, why did you ignore them? Nishidani (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:BOLD.If you think that someone else broke 1RR please report him.Don't ask any one to do you your job for you--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely no. I don't want to stain my excellent record as someone who refuses to take people to arbitration. I didn't ask people to do my job. I did the work, and asked for a judgement. 3 major breaking news articles were written because editors from different POV, once on my suggestion, agreed not to use the IR as an instrument to gain editorial advantages. All the article builders broke it on those three pages, and no one was reported because we peons committed to the composition of articles, and not I/P warring games, know you just cannot write those articles and not break the rule, because it means that after an alteration, everything else all editors can do for 24 hours is just pile in more information regardless of the dissonance and unreadability this would cause. I don't chase 1R infractions or aste time combing someone's contribs to find if I can get him off the page, and make life comfortable for one of two POVs: I look to the merit of each edit, and if it is good or sound, I approve. If it is lousy, I mark it for correction, hoping someone else sights it if I can't revert it. The rule exists to enable article creation, not to create obstacles and enmity among collegues.Nishidani (talk) 07:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. This is getting tiresome. On a narrow technical level, if Al-Andalusi had not stated in the edit sumary that the first edit was a partial revert, other than the change of the word "claimed" to "announced", I wouldn't even notice it. Plus, I don't even know which edit of Irondome's, Al-Andalusi is partly reverting. The second diff is clearly a revert. So, thee may not even be a 1RR violation here, not sure. There is no exemption from 1RR because an article is a current event that is being heavily edited by many, many users with an eye to improving the information and the sources. For one thing, it's hard for an administrator to sort out that kind of content analysis. God knows I'm relatively aggressive when it comes to blocking editors for violating 3RR or for violating 1RR in contravention of ArbCom sanctions, but even I am not favorably impressed by these reports. I strongly urge anyone who wants to file such a report about this particular article to go to WP:ARE. Again, I'm not taking any action here (I officially alerted Al-Andalusi of the sanctions), although another administrator is free to do whatever he or she deems appropriate as I'm not closing the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I have fixed the report.
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined. Bbb23 says everything I would say. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Therock9998 reported by User:Falcadore (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: 1979 Australian Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
also
1980 Australian Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1981 Australian Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1982 Australian Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1983 Australian Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1984 Australian Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1985 Australian Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1986 Australian Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1987 Australian Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1988 Australian Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1989 Australian Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1990 Australian Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1991 Australian Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1992 Australian Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1993 Australian Touring Car Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2014 International V8 Supercars Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Therock9998 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [3]

Diffs of the user's reverts (just on 1979 Australian Touring Car Championship the others are much the same):

  1. [4] 01:45, July 17, 2014
  2. [5] 00:01, July 18, 2014
  3. [6] 01:13, July 18, 2014
  4. [7] 02:56, July 18, 2014
  5. [8] 07:31, July 18, 2014
  6. [9] 08:19, July 18, 2014

and now

  1. [10] 09:02, July 18, 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Therock9998#Edit war warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Therock9998

Comments:

On going attempts to get involved user to cease damaging table coding. Evaded a block when applied as an IP editor by establishing this User ID. I hesitate to say Sock Puppetting as this is plainly a new user and would not understanding either the terminology or that it is considered poor etiquette. Refuses to communicate with other editors. Am at a complete loss, and I have probably overstepped the line myself attempting and tender my apologies. Falcadore (talk) 09:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

No he or she is just being disruptive and a vandal. On going vandalistic edits across a couple of dozen Australian motorsport articles. --Falcadore (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of two weeks. I also blocked 110.174.5.183 (talk · contribs · count) for two weeks who is obviously the same person. The named account was created just shortly after the IP was blocked before.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

User:2601:9:8180:E85:5977:B6:354C:5E2F reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: 31 hours)[edit]

Page
Jose Antonio Vargas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
2601:9:8180:E85:5977:B6:354C:5E2F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 05:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 617271067 by Bbb23 (talk)"
  2. 13:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 617282169 by Nomoskedasticity (talk)"
  3. 15:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC) ""
  4. 01:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 617364972 by Gamaliel (talk) Please stop edit warring Gamaliel"
  5. Consecutive edits made from 14:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC) to 14:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    1. 14:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC) ""
    2. 14:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 21:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Jose Antonio Vargas. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

The user has been edit-warring to put similar material into this page for a couple of days. He's reverting against multiple users, including me. The material has WP:BLP issues and sourcing issues. Although one solution is to semi-protect the article, the IP is the only one who is battling; thus, that seems unfair to any other non-autoconfirmed user. Although I did not include even earlier edits to the article, the IP is a WP:SPA. Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. Let me or this board know if they IP-hop. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Mfs104 and User:92.225.129.161 reported by User:WikiDan61 (Result: bb 24 hours)[edit]

Page: International Young Democrat Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mfs104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and 92.225.129.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


The nature of this battle is too complex for individual difference links. I refer the reviewer to International Young Democrat Union: the edit summaries alone indicate a failure of the two editors to try to reach WP:CONSENSUS.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warned the IP; warned the registered user.

I am not involved in this edit war, and have just observed it as a third party. No evidence either party has tried to resolve the issue through any type of discussion.

Comments:


  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Both are clearly edit warring, thank you WikiDan61. Wikipedia is not the place for an external group to hash out their internal differences. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

User:67.193.18.194 reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Shawinigan Handshake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
67.193.18.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC) "Here's the source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aline_Chr%C3%A9tien Instead of deleting relevant, factual information how about helping out!"
  2. 02:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC) "Just add the friggin footnote. I don't know how. Never donating $ again to wikipedia."
  3. 16:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC) "Here's the reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aline_Chr%C3%A9tien I do not know how to add it as a footnote in the article. Helping rather than undoing would seem to be benificial."
  4. 17:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC) "It's worth noting because an attempted assassination is going to affect your state of mind when a protester breaks your RCMP security detail. It's obvious a piece relevant to this situation."
  5. 17:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC) "The link is good enough for this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Dallaire Deletionists are the bain of casual editors like me."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 17:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Shawinigan Handshake. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 17:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Proposed addition is synthesis */ new section"
Comments:

Also edit warring on Donald Trump NeilN talk to me 17:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Harmony944 reported by User:Ryulong (Result: Both blocked)[edit]

Page
Talk:Power Rangers Megaforce (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Harmony944 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 17:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Section break */"
  2. 18:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC) "If we can't remove your list, you can't add a section break. Keep it all together"
  3. 18:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Section break */"
  4. 18:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Section break */"
  5. 18:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 617487780 by Ryulong (talk) You're more focused on minor stuff than providing an actual argument. Grow up"
  6. 19:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 617488125 by Ryulong (talk) "Refactoring improves nonfunctional attributes of the software" Stop edit warring"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 18:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Refactoring others' talk page comments on Talk:Power Rangers Megaforce. (TW)"
  2. 18:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Refactoring others' talk page comments on Talk:Power Rangers Megaforce. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 18:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 617487926 by Harmony944 (talk) stop refactoring my talk page contributions"
Comments:

I added a section break to an extremely long thread on this article's talk page. Harmony944 has repeatedly removed this section break because he claims it disrupts the flow, despite my constant requests that he not modify my contributions to the talk page per WP:TPG. He has kept at this. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

First, it takes two to edit war. His section break was him putting half of a comment on top, then the section break, and then the second half. It was part of THE SAME DISCUSSION. Unless removing a section break and removing a redundant signature is a "drastic change", there is no base to these claims. It's a 21 character removal. That's MINISCULE--Harmony944 (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I attempted to start a new line of discussion with my edit, and there were two separate lines of discussion going on. One to Shadowbird and the other asking why it was such a big deal. And a section break is needed for these long and winding threads. You refactored my contributions to the talk page without my consent. That's not allowed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
No you didn't. It was the same discussion, don't kid yourself. It was the same line of discussion. The three of us were in the same discussion. It doesn't matter how long the discussion is, it has to be kept together unless you want to screw with people so they can't pick apart your argument bit by bit so it can look like you're "winning". You're not, and this report is a sham.--Harmony944 (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
The section break was solely for the sake of Ryulong's complaining about the fact that Harmony944 and I were debating his call for a change. It did not serve a purpose except to separate the complaining from everything else, and I personally consider the section break unnecessary. It had nothing to do with actual discussion of the requested change; it merely existed for Ryulong's complaints. Deleting the section break would then be justifiable. I believe this report to be unwarranted.--Shadowbird712 (talk) 19:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
The page has expanded by 3 times since I began the discussion. A break is necessary to make it easier to keep contributing even though it's likely going to end soon. There is no reason to refactor mine or anyone's contributions to a talk page, particularly when you merged two comments made an hour apart in one of your edits. I meant for them to be separate. You have no right to merge them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
And now Harmony944 is edit warring with me on my user talk by pasting one of the warnings I gave him that has no basis when applied to me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me? No basis? You disrupted the conversation when you put 2 successive warnings on my page because you didn't like what I was saying on the Megaforce talk page. You couldn't handle being wrong so you started threatening to get me blocked. That's why you're here, isn't it?--Harmony944 (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I gave you the warnings because they were applicable to your modifications of my talk page contributions without my express consent, regardless if it's just a new section header. I told you that wasn't allowed when you cut out the lists twice.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I have to say, of all the WP:LAME things I have seen on Wikipedia, this has to be in the top 10. CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

This edit war or the discussion that led to it?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours. The blocks are for edit warring. However, the moves discussion on the talk page is appalling.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Maurice Flesier reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: stale)[edit]

Page
Mesut Özil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Maurice Flesier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 10:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC) "Özil is Turkish origin German."
  2. 12:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC) "Some fixes?? To remove ethnicity, not an satisfactory explanation."
  3. 15:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 616913338 by Walter Görlitz (talk) Before the back, please discuss on the talk page!"
  4. 18:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 616939465 by 64.251.94.5 (talk)"

This is three days later, but there is still no consensus here.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 14:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Mesut Özil. (TW)"
  2. 02:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC) "/* July 2014 */ +"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Editor is aware of 3RR, WP:OPENPARA, WP:MOSBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

A solution to this problem was "German-Turkish footballer". I agree that the user has breached openpara, mosbio and 3rr. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 04:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. There is an ongoing report here at ANI about Walter's behavior generally. Regarding the 3RR report here, it's a bit hard to evaluate other editors' conduct on the page because there's so much activity on the article, both by named accounts and IPs, and some of it involves content disputes, whereas some of it is just obvious vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I made a single revert there over the time period so please do not cloud the issue Bbb23. The issue is simple: the editor made four reverts here trying to impose a specific version of the article against four separate editors: two registered and two anon. The editor then singled me out on the talk page as I was the only editor involved. This is a clear-cut case. If the editor is not blocked I would expect a detailed explanation as to why this editor can get away with violating 3RR even after being reported, and "stale" is not detailed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale - 2/0 (cont.) 14:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Don't you dare! Block him. I get blocked for making four edits with guidelines to support my edits with an anon who doesn't explain the edits being made, while this editor makes four reverts against two editors and two anons, and the latter three were all clearly explained. I engage in talk page while this editor make personal attacks on talk page. This is another reason why it's obvious that edit warring is fine in the eyes of some new editors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Jcam6 reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Aaron Craft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Jcam6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 04:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC) ""
  2. Consecutive edits made from 03:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC) to 03:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
    1. 03:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC) ""
    2. 03:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC) ""
  3. 03:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 03:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Aaron Craft. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User was blocked as a vandalism-only account. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

User:TheAirplaneGuy reported by User:John (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheAirplaneGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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


User appears to have reverted 13 times in the past 24 hours.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]

Comments:

Just going out and don't have time to add all thirteen (!) diffs. Please talk nicely to this user and block if necessary. John (talk) 11:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I've reported you as well for personal attack. Wasn't edit warring as well, just taking out bad edits TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 11:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of one day and I've notified both of discretionary sanctions. The block as for the 3RR violation only no prejudice on the result of the ANI discussion. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 13:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Darkfrog24 reported by User:Jack Sebastian (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Oathkeeper (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Darkfrog24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: previous version


Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: notice

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: a, b, c and notice by User:Donlago on Darkgfrog24's usertalk

Comments:

Darkfrog was blocked by Nyttend less than three weeks ago for edit-warring within the same article. Darkfrog24 refuses to discuss in talk without reverting in her preferred version of the article first. Every other editor, with the exception of DonQuixote, Donlago and myself, have left the article due to her tendentious nature. She keeps insisting that our consensus is wrong, that the RfC closure opinion rendered by FormerIP was wrong and incomplete…the list goes on. It doesn't matter what any of us say, she just reverts her version in and tells us we are all wrong in article discussion. This has been going on for almost two months, and it has to stop.

The rest of us just want to stabilize the article and ensure that the content added can help it get to GA- and FA-status at some point. Traditionally, I'd be here requesting a block to protect the article. That said, Darkfrog has already stated on her talk page that the initial block by Nyttend wouldn't really have affected her, as per her claim that ("I've taken multi-day breaks before to absolutely no effect"). So, a block would have no effect on her behavior. She'd come off the block and continue edit-warring, as she has done here. I think a topic ban regarding any Game of Thrones series articles is called for at this point. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of one week Due to the continued disruption, if you believe a topic ban is necessary you'll need to raise it on WP:AN with evidence. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 08:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Very well. I'll take a wait-and-see attitude after she returns to the Project. Maybe the break will add some perspective for her. Fingers are crossed. And thanks. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Iselilja reported by User:Wujastyk (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Victoria Nuland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Iselilja (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. [12]
  2. [13]
  3. [14]
  4. [15]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17]

Comments: I have been trying to report on a matter of public interest regarding multiple versions of the famous leaked phone call between Nuland and Pyatt. A number of users seem to have little or no problem with this, or sought only reasonable tweaks. But a determined group of users including Iselejla, NazariyKaminski, and TheRedPenOfDoom have systematically and repeatedly deleted all reference to this information, using a variety of questionable appeals to WP editorial policies that have been explicitly addressed after each deletion. The most recent reversion took place in less than 60 seconds after I posted a newly-edited version of the information together with a friendly appeal in Talk that we should discuss any further edits and agree a joint version, in Talk, before further editing the main page. This had no effect, and produced no discussion or justification for the instant deletion. Since this is a matter bearing on the Ukrainian war, it is hard to remain confident in the "good faith" policy of WikiPedia when posts about presumed spying activity ("tradecraft") are being reported. DomLaguna (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. One revert? You're kidding, right? Perhaps you should listen to the other editors about the content, although I express no opinion on it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Inayity (Result: Both warned)[edit]

Page: Ramadan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Hajj (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please speak with User:Inayity about his edits on Ramadan and Hajj. He is edit warring on both. The main discussion is at the talkpage of Ramadan, where he has been active in the last 4 posts. So far only 2 editors have posted in them, disagreeing. He is aggressive and unpleasant, and simply misunderstands WP:WEIGHT. Please see his userpage that I suspect him to be less than neutral on the subject, as in WP:LIKE. Debresser (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The cheek, so If I am edit warring what exactly are you doing. Beware of WP:BOOMERANG Here is your history history of reverting it is strange that you come and say they should talk to me. I did my fair share but my friend you are hiding behind 3rr to WP:WAR reverting on the line you have not used the talk page to settle anything, only to edit how you want, and then hold a discussion (reminds me of a certain country) See Your own user page, talk about Pot calling kettle black LOL. --Inayity (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I am active replying to you on the talkpages of those 2 articles, with over 20 edits today. Is that how you proof all your arguments?
I know WP:BOOMERANG, but I also know that I edit according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which you are misunderstanding and misusing, supposedly to make a point connected with your personal opinions. Debresser (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Not sure your point, Are you not engaged in the edit war you are reporting? Or am I edit warring with your twin? Do you know what this space is for? So why are you discussing WP:LIKE here? there is a dispute or request for comments for that kind of stuff. And I also have "suspect" about you per your colorful userpage. Anyone can make accusations, making mature points is another thing. So per your contributions you have done more edit warring than me, and on two articles got your version inserted, yet you tell me about Edit warring.? --Inayity (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
You can not remove sourced information without good reason, and your reasons are challenged by 2 editors. They actually have been proven wrong already. That leaves us with you edit warring for the sake of edit warring. So why shouldn't I tell you about edit warring? Debresser (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
If my reasons were so wrong why then did you have to go and change this edit? So you were reverting me and never check out my objections. Clearly I was not wrong. Now Two editors means nothing, what counts is the ability to make a case using Policy. We do not WP:VOTE and the talk page shows clearly who started the off key remarks, imagine lecturing me about what I know. I never did that, I simply copy and pasted policy for you to see. This nonsense of "You do not know what you are talking about" is for teenagers, it is only you saying so, argue by rationale not "You are wrong", that is just below me. Now the question for bonus prizes, Since you know about Wikipedia, What does wikipedia say about handling Disputes? Did you follow that? What is Wiki policy for avoiding Edit war show the people here the steps you took to avoid it.If I am guilty you are equally so. --Inayity (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
For the record this is the remark that started the whole thing going South: Up until this point no issue No idea why this remark was made? Who is this guy to talk for so many other editors?--Inayity (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. Debresser and Inayity, you are both warned that if you continue this battle in the article, you may be blocked without any further notice or warning, regardless of whether you breached WP:3RR. The only reason you're not being blocked now is because you both skirted 3RR by the skin of your collective teeth. Debresser, if you want to report disruptive conduct, take it to another noticeboard. If you want to report edit warring, then file an appropriate report with a proper header and diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Bbb23 (or other willing editors) I posted this way because I wanted somebody to explain to Inayity what he is doing, not to have him punished. He should be stopped from removing information he doesn't like. He continues with this edit, which is so wrong because 1. it was discussed 2. the info is well sourced 3. he is censoring Wikipedia. Can you explain this to him? If not, where should I take this? Debresser (talk) 09:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
If you want to raise Inayity's conduct but not have him sanctioned for edit warring, then take it to WP:ANI. Make sure you're clear what you're asking for. I make no prediction as to whether such a report will be received favorably.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Yes, raising his conduct was my specifically stated intention. I have some experience at WP:ANI, and am not favorably impressed with that forum. I was convinced the edit warring noticeboard should be the more logical venue for this issue. Debresser (talk) 18:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Mark Heins and User:Markdabner reported by User:Solarra (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page
List of people who have run across Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported
Mark Heins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Markdabner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to

Previous version

Diffs of the user's reverts

[18] [19] [20] [21]

The entire page history can be viewed here

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Mark Heins: [22] Markdabner: [23]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[24]

Comments:

Give me a minute, TW won't load the reverts, going to have to manually add them. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 18:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Got it built, this edit war has gone on since 10 July, I was going to request page protection, but neither user seems willing to communicate to build consensus on this article. This has been reported at ANI but this is the proper venue for this issue. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 18:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

User:AdmiralMeow reported by User:Lesser Cartographies (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Talk:Yank Barry (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AdmiralMeow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

User being reported: 71.169.164.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


IP + SPA adding same WP:BLP violation to talk page 6x times. Note the subject of the article recently filed (and then dismissed) a lawsuit against 4 wikipedia editors.

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: IP

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

AdmiralMeow

  1. [28]
  2. [29]
  3. [30]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31] (Warning was for BLP vio)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No discussion for BLP vio.

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked AdmiralMeow and his IP for one month. In the future, please post the required notice of this discussion to the talk pages of the reported accounts. I rarely block without that notice, but I made an exception in this case.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

User:IjonTichyIjonTichy reported by User:Epeefleche (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. deletion at 17:35, July 19, 2014
  2. deletion at 17:52, July 19, 2014 (article under 1RR)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of warning of 1RR restrictions and discretionary sanctions: here

("The article 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers ... is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, as laid out during a 2008 Arbitration case, and supplemented by community consensus in November 2010. The current restrictions are:

All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related....

Editors who ... violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.... ")

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [33]

Comments: In a clear breach of 1RR, on a contentious article, IjonTichyIjonTichy deleted the same material twice. Within minutes. That is unacceptable.

He is also I believe incorrect (and for example equates attributed non-quote statements with "quotes"). But that is a secondary issue.

This is just the sort of problematic 1RR violation that makes the editing of articles in this area so difficult, and the reason they were subjected to 1RR in the first place.Epeefleche (talk) 22:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)



I was under the (possibly incorrect) impression my first edit did not constitute a revert, and thus I believed (possibly incorrectly) that my second edit was the one revert I was allowed.
I have no intention to revert that material again within at least the next 24 hours, or 48 hours (and extremely likely much, much longer than that). This particular article does not interest me that much (although I am sad for the losses of all the families involved, on all sides of the conflict). Instead, I'd like to explain my view. Just because something appears in a reliable source, does not immediately imply that we are obligated to cite it in the encyclopedia. We (WP editors) are not automatic robots - we are supposed to, indeed we are required, to exercise judgment. (Otherwise we could all be replaced by artificial intelligence software that would edit WP harmoniously and peacefully without any [human] editorial disagreements.) Please read very carefully the WP policies on WP:Weight and WP:V. So-called "off the record" statements attributed to "anonymous officials" should be treated, in my view, with extreme suspicion, to the point where they deserve zero weight, regardless of the nationality, race, religion, ethnicity, race, socio-economic status, geographic location (or any other factor) of the "person" who is alleged to have made the statement. Thanks and regards, IjonTichy (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
You suggest here that you did not understand that your first deletion of the text added by another editor was a "revert".
First, that's pretty basic. When an editor adds material, and you delete it (or hit "undo), of course that is a revert.
Second, you are an experienced editor, with thousands of edits.
Third, you seemed to understand perfectly well that a "first revert" is in fact a revert, when you brought this complaint to the AN/I noticeboard two years ago.
Fourth, the 1RR tag clarifies, with an inline link, what "revert" means. Epeefleche (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. I've formally alerted Ijon of the discretionary sanctions. I've also formally alerted User:Catherine Curran. Indeed, given the number of reverts Catherine has made to the article today, it puzzles me, Epeefleche, why you are not reporting her. I'm not taking any other action at this point, but I'm leaving it open to another administrator to take action if they wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Bbb23 -- thanks. As to your question, the answer is that I had only today gotten as far as looking at the 1RR problem with Ijon. And one of his two reverts was a revert of material I added.
But looking as you suggest at the further edits in the article, I see that those of the very active Catherine appear to be a complete mess -- whatever other problems they include, they also appear to include insertion of whole blocks of text that are uncited, which is problematic in an article of this nature. I support whatever action is deemed appropriate vis-a-vis Catherine (I'm off to grab a bite right now, so I won't have the time to parse here changes/additions, but hopefully my endorsement of your suggestion that her edits be scrutinized closely will move things in the right direction). Epeefleche (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Epeefleche, who said you were allowed to eat? Although I have the authority to block someone without warning, I generally prefer not to, particularly, as in this case, I would have had to do so spontaneosly. Let's just hope now that she's been warned, her contributions will be more carefully monitored by those editors active on that and other related pages. Although I didn't fully analyze them, they appeared to be very disruptive above and beyond the number of reverts.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I should add, IjonTichyIjonTichy, a self-revert of your second revert would go some ways to showing good faith.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Bbb23 for the friendly suggestion. I wish I would have thought of it myself. I appreciate your feedback here and on my talk page.
Dear Epeefleche, the diff that you provided to my edit from two years ago was (a) made under entirely different circumstances and context and is entirely irrelevant to the particular circumstances and context under consideration here, and (b) made two years ago, and thus ancient history. In other words, you'll need to try harder to bring more recent evidence (much more recent than two years ago) that shows that I am prone to edit warring. Good luck with that, because such evidence does not exist.
Furthermore, Epeefleche, your edit summary reverting my edit appears to accuse me of editing in order to push a POV, and now you appear to be accusing me of lying. In both cases, it appears you (a) may have failed to assume good faith, and (b) may have rushed to make some serious accusations based on flimsy (actually, non existent) evidence.
Additionally, you appear to be conveniently ignoring the view that statements attributed to "anonymous officials" speaking "off the record" are highly detrimental to the encyclopedia and make a complete mockery of WP. And especially when such statements are made in highly controversial articles. And especially when they are made in the lead section. And especially when these citations may also be in violation of the BLP of the persons who have been accused by some conveniently "unnamed" source to have committed very serious crimes.

Best regards, IjonTichy (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Ijon -- my point about your AN/I complaint had (I would have thought would be obvious) nothing to do with the substance of the AN/I. Your comments at the AN/I -- along with the other three points I make, above -- simply brings into question your assertion that you do not know what a revert is. Since it appears that as far back as two years ago, per that complaint, you understood quite well that a "first" revert is indeed a revert. Epeefleche (talk) 05:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Not blocked. Unless I'm missing a significant detail, IjonTichy has self-reverted and has made no further edits to the article in question. There's nothing stopping y'all from having a cordial discussion at the article's talk page. Kuru (talk) 14:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Renee00124 reported by User:Stalwart111 (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

Article: Electronic harassment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Editor: Renee00124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Original edit
  2. [34]
  3. [35]
  4. [36]
  5. [37]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: the latest of several warnings

Comments:

Several editors have reverted this editor's changes to the article in question and all have warned him as required. I then realised I was reverting his fourth revert (five if you include the original disruptive edit). Stlwart111 11:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Four reverts, not including the original addition. Was warned prior to the last revert. Kuru (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
It should also be noted that per the discussion at WP:FTN, [38] at least some of the material added by this contributor appears to have been copy-pasted from elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Fixed4u reported by User:RealDealBillMcNeal (Result: Both blocked)[edit]

Page
Ezequiel Garay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Fixed4u (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 617736620 by RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) My edit provides reliable information."
  2. 18:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 617731810 by RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) "BELIEVED to be in the region of 15 million euros" = GUESS"
  3. 17:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 617730534 by RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) S.L. Benfica announcement to CMVM > your unreliable source"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 17:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC) to 17:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    1. 17:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 617727339 by RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) "The deal IS SAID to be worth ABOUT €15m (£12m).""
    2. 17:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Zenit */"
  5. 15:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC) "independent.co.uk IS WRONG"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 18:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Ezequiel Garay */"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

I warned the user not to change the edits, I then added further sources, I then warned him on his talk page; he repeatedly ignored and reverted the edits. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

False. I didn't ignore you and even explained you why your edits are wrong. Fixed4u (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked. Both users violated WP:3RR (by quite a bit). I blocked RealDeal for 48 hours and Fixed for 31 hours. RealDeal had a very recent edit warring block.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

User:HesioneHushabye reported by User:Seattle (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HesioneHushabye (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. "you just ruined this whole page you asshole ."
  2. [39]
  3. [40]
  4. "you do realize that what you just did deleted over a years worth of updates to the page, including last years nominees? it's now out-dated and ruined."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42]

Comments: That discussion over two years ago led nowhere, and the user reverted without consensus to his preferred version. The page remained the way it was until I reverted the page to its featured list status today. Any change should be rationally discussed, and from the discussion two years ago, combined with the tone of the reverts today, it doesn't seem as though the user has any interest in being rational. Seattle (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Seattle, I don't want to read that 2012 discussion in detail, but when did Hesione restore their preferred version, and what about the intervening edits between 2012 and now (I'm assuming you went all the way back but I haven't verified that)? The only thing that is clear to me is that Hesione has an attitude (based on edit summaries).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Over the span of April 26–27 2012, from the version that passed as a Featured List after a communal discussion. After the FL promotion, an unrelated discussion formed a consensus to change the font size, which was implemented. In 2013, after encouragement from HesioneHushabye, another user changed the article to HesioneHushabye's version, again without consensus. The user updated their version through the next two years, while it remained stable as the unproven version. After updates, not much else changed in terms of format. Seattle (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
That advances me some, Seattle, but not all the way. Three more questions. First, I see the cause and effect of the encouragement diff, but I don't see how Heisone's comment on the other user's page provoked a change to a different article. Second, what about those "updates" after the change to the other version? Did you lose them when you restored the article? If so, did you evaluate them substantively? Third, why are you coming back to this so late in the game? I realize nothing compels you to monitor the article, but I'm still curious.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
OK. See [43], which changed the Drama Desk Award format to the same format at the Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play article, indicative of some connection between the two. The updates didn't affect the format that passed as a FL, but did add information without a consensus. I'm coming back because I want what's proper for Wikipedia, to uphold consensus and not the will of the individual. I asked another user to represent my interests a while ago, but I want to represent my own interests now. Of note is his response to HesioneHushabye: [44]. Seattle (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 36 hours. Thanks for your responses, Seattle. However, ultimately what tipped the scale for me was Hesione's last revert, which said that you deleted "last year's nominees". Yet, Hesione's version has fewer entries (through 2012) than the version he reverted. I also don't like the aggressive, attacking edit summaries. That said, @Seattle, if the recipient table is still missing the latest entry (2014?), it should be added. In addition, I noticed in passing that there is an "image" of Bancroft with a link that doesn't exist. All that said, you shouldn't be the one to implement these changes at this point, or you will have violated 3RR, regardless of Hesione's block.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
@Bbb23: OK. I removed the Bancroft image earlier, but HesioneHushabye reverted that edit as well. I'll leave well enough alone for the period prescribed at WP:3RR. Best, Seattle (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

User:NewsAndEventsGuy reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Warned)[edit]

The post-warning comments are not particularly constructive. We're done here, and, honestly, the reported user is fortunate to have only received a warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2014 (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
Public opinion on climate change (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC) "3RR exemption libel; Michael_E._Mann#Defamation_lawsuit and what's the status of Mann v Ball anyway?"
  2. 22:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Science */ 3RR exception, stealth reference to libel claims in media now in federal court"
  3. 20:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Science */ Subtly propogates statements now being litigated in federal court. We aren't a platform for libel."
  4. 19:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 617618369 by 216.36.172.107 (talk) "the debate" and "is over" are too vacuous to be relevant"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Got to the article via the BLP board, please note there are no names mentioned in the content being removed, so the claim of a BLP exemption is spurious Darkness Shines (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Response by NAEG

This is a report is specious because (A) I deleted the material four times (B) Edit summaries state a goodfaith claim for a 3RR exception (libel) (C) Following the 4th deletion I made a substantial contrib to the talk page discussion and explicitly stated that I would not remove the material again (diff)Sorry, I'm pretty sure I typed that somewhere along the line, but now I can't find the diff, but in any case my subsequent actions are consistent with that statement (D) I also started a discussion at BLPN

OVERALL, blocks and the like are for PREVENTION and not PUNISHMENT. I stopped reverting and participated substantively in the talk thread, and due to the BLP problem intersecting with plausible deniability, also started a thread at BLPN per the part of BLP policy saying "The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis."

QUESTION Darkness Shines (talk · contribs), since the goal of admin action is prevention etc and since I am involved in two talk threads and am not reverting, just what is the purpose of this report? Prevention or...... something else? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The report is because you were edit warring, and broke 3RR. On an article which is covered by discretionary sanctions. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
(ec) This report clearly intends to harm a very productive editor and not much else. Darkness Shines opened this after NAEG opened the TP section and even raised the issue over at BLP/N, explicitely stating that "My deletion was reverted and I'm going to leave the material in the article while soliciting input, starting here at BLPN". The deletion he is referring to is what Darkness Shines calls NAEG's second revert, which means that NAEG only reverted 3 times, not 4, since that is not a revert but a removal of content. This is one of those issues that need to be swiftly dismissed with a warning issued to Darkness Shines to avoid opening false reports in the future. Regards. Gaba (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
LMFAO, removing content is a revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
No, that's editing WP. NAEG was not trying to restore the article to his prefered version, he made an original contribution to it by removing content he considered unsuitable. Regards. Gaba (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Dear god in heaven, see WP:3RR "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Removing content is a revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Help:Reverting: Reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page being restored to a previous version. Removing content needs to restore the article to a previous version to be considered a revert. If it creates a new version of the article, it is simply a WP edit. Regards. Gaba (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. There is no doubt that NewsAndEventsGuy violated WP:3RR. The BLP exemption is misguided although apparently sincerely held. WP:3RRNO states, "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." It would have been more appropriate for NAEG to take the issue to BLPN no later than after the third revert, if not earlier. In addition, the article is under discretionary sanctions, and NAEG is aware of those sanctions, having been officially notified of them in January of this year. Despite all that, I am reluctant to sanction an editor who (1) says he will not revert again and (2) believes he was doing the right thing. But NAEG is warned that if this kind of conduct recurs, he should seek guidance before reverting and that a repeat violation of this type may lead to a block without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

E/C

I concur only with the result, but respectfully think Bbb23 has not seriously weight the substance underlying this matter. For the record, I "officially notified" myself about DS. (Hmm, come to think of it, before I did that I earned a notice for restoring to a stable version in response to Darkness Shines' edits.)
I was trying to post the following at time of E/C and will now get back to real work
Dear devil in hades, there was no edit war due to the 3RR exception, and even the non-edit war back-and-forth editing has been supplanted by discussion
Blocking policy says, "The purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment."
Having been asked whether the purpose of the complainant is prevention or something else, the complainant says, "The report is because you were edit warring, and broke 3RR."
I'm not asking for any admin action, but in my opinion WP:BOOMERANG applies per "Do not disrupt wikipedia to make a point"
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

───────────────────────── You're confusing me using DS for discretionary sanctions when DS is also used to refer to Darkness Shines. :-) You were notified of the discretionary sanctions by Callanecc. I'm not going to address your other points. Let's move on.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Wrong on both counts, B. Careful reading will show context that I also meant discretionary sanctions, and also corrected the record to say when I was first notified so you didn't really need to thump me there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I realize this was hatted, but for posterity I'd like to add diffs to my DS self-notices in case this file is reviewed for background in a future proceeding. They are

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


  • Comment I looked at the content in question and it is not properly sourced and what i call a very questionable addition. As it is, i would have reverted it too i guess. prokaryotes (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
With a closer look it appears as if Darkness Shines talk attempts to introduce doubt and denial into the article, since the poll created controversy, see climate change denial. prokaryotes (talk) 23:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
More detail, Darkness Shines used sources which are/were highly misleading, see], the poll came after the manufactured Climategate controversy and was very vague.