Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Find this page confusing? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:Wkerney reported by User:2over0 (Result: Warning)

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

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

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5] on 07-30. Wkerney has not responded to this communication directly, but has participated in the discussion linked below.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: talkpage discussion. The "consensus" Wkerney alludes to is not current and is described at this diff (scroll for the new content).
Comments:

• Please note that this page is covered by standard discretionary sanctions per the pseudoscience arbitration case. The notification and logging instructions are described at those links if you think such actions are warranted. - 2/0 (cont.) 11:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Warned. I have given Wkerney a formal warning about discretionary sanctions. I have also warned them separately that they risk being blocked if they continue to insist on their version. One small quibble. When Wkerney added the material from the FDA, they did give attribution to the FDA website. Also, it's not clear to me that {{PD-notice}}, which gives no guidance its usage, is applicable. A work normally is in the public domain because its copyright expires or because it is dedicated to the public domain. The US government does not own a copyright in its own works, so there's no copyright to begin with.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

We went through a long and very painful process of finding a consensus definition that worked for everyone several months ago. May 2013 is hardly "very old". Then someone broke consensus by reverting it back to the old version, which I am trying to fix. Having three editors on talk is a far cry from the number of people that established consensus earlier. Also, it is clear that my definition is correct, is well sources, and NPOV, unlike the version currently live that broke consensus. It is this edit here (please look at his comments in the changelog) that should have been sanctioned, but nobody was paying attention to changes at the same since consensus had been reached. Wkerney (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that. On the small quibble, the issue is that text was lifted without stating its status as a quote; merely providing a citation erroneously denotes original text covered by our license rather than the more liberal permissions that would actually govern its reuse. The piece is a work for hire for the US government and thus not eligible for copyright protection, but use of the text is still covered by the copyvio policy. I could probably have been clearer, but as you say this aspect is pretty minor here; we can continue on my talkpage if you like. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to matter to the edit warriors whether it uses a quote directly from the FDA or the previous consensus definition. Wkerney (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

User:DONALDderosa reported by User:PrairieKid (Result: Stale)

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

Previous version reverted to: [6]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:11, 4 August 2013 (edit summary: "Added official photo.")
2. 04:08, 5 August 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 567205338 by 75.15.217.132 (talk) Do not revert from official photos.")
3. 04:18, 5 August 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 567211774 by 75.15.217.132

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of warning: here, here, and here.

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

Comments:

This user has done it before, against myself on the New York City comptroller election, 2013, which I forgave, assuming good faith. I did warn them about the 3rr rule, as shown above after those edits. I saw this begin, and I warned them again. However, I reconsidered and decided that a ban may be necessary. PrairieKid (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I fail to understand the wrong doing of my edits. When a politicians official photo is available on Wikipedia, you use it. Regardless of the license dispute, that image is still available and should still be used. In the event the image is removed, then it is simply removed from the elected officials page. Since the NYC Comptroller election was brought up, I should let you know that my edits on that page were correct. The user PrairieKid made edits that were incorrect and I changed them. An administrator ruled in my favor. I do not understand your reasoning behind reporting me for vandalism. The edits I am making are for the good of the Wiki page. Not vandalism. - DONALDderosa (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The validity of the edits are not in question. It is the manner in which you went about it. Rather than start a discussion, you simply reverted. Last time, I (hesitantly) assumed good faith. I linked the policy, which you should have read, but failed to follow. PrairieKid (talk) 03:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Stale. Donald has not edited the article since August 5.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Spshu reported by User:Favre1fan93 (Result: )

Page

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Spshu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 567316913 by Favre1fan93 (talk) - once again unexplained removal of cite & use of TW"
2. 21:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 567315518 by Favre1fan93 (talk) unexplain removal of cites"
3. 21:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 567314555 by Favre1fan93 (talk) miss use of TW"
4. 21:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 567285636 by Favre1fan93 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

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

For reference, here is my initial edit summary, explaining my position ([7]) and my attempt in another edit summary asking the user to take it to the talk page (which I only got back the response ("unexplained removal of cites") ([8]) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

There isn't a reason to remove a cite that is proper. You gave no reason, just how you wanted it with no cites in the infobox and that you didn't like the way I cite. You never when to the talk page. Then you cause an edit conflict when I attempted to respond to your "warning" on my talk page from your notification of taking me to 3RR. Spshu (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

There, I reversed it. You happy that you own it now? Spshu (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

First, I don't own that page. I'll try to explain my edits. Initial edit: I removed the reference tags labeled "vty" next to the cast, producers and network in the infobox, as they were unnecessary. Why are they unecessary? Per this guideline (which I did not have the time to find include in my edit summary initially). The source next to the new production team is fine, because out of all the other info in the infobox, that was a new addition, previously unknown, and needed a source. If you just added that name without the sourced, it would have been challenged, but you didn't, which is fine. Then, I took the source that you added, and reformatted it to fit the inline convention that is used on the page, and gave it a better name to help identify it better. Finally I used that source to add info in the Reception section, as that pertained.

Okay, now your first revert: Readded back ref naming of "vty", which you can't make heads or tails about the source compared to "VarietyReview" (hence my change) and readded the ref tags next to the cast, producers and network in the infobox. All of this without any explanation. I then reverted you, explaining again that the extra citing was not needed, and not really understanding why you changed the reference style. Your second revert said it was a "miss use of TW", which it was not. I again revert, asking you why you are changing, especially the source formatting, as you still have not given me a reason for including the extra tags (granted, I did not have the guideline at my disposal to link to either). I also encourage you to take it up on the talk page, which you do not. You revert a third and fourth time, claiming "unexplained removal of cites" (which was false [granted without the policy]) and "use of TW" (not an improper use). And then finally you claim that I own the page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

See now you actually give a reason. You waited until coming to ANI to give a reason (Per MOS guideline) instead of what you wanted ("removing unnecessary extra citations") as a single citation generally are not "unneccesary" nor "extra". What the hell!?! Then why is their one for the Composer?

On top of that you can not figure out "vty" for "Variety"? "vty" is the name for the ref. name "vty", how hard is that. Since, unnecessary is a guideline for you, do you understand that you have unnecessary named 31 references? And unncessarily "junked up" the article with Twitter and Facebook sources (which he is now fighting about)? So how per Favre1fan93 fiat this is the only way to cite: "...proper citing". And unnecessary changed the reference method at Marvel Television to continue this war else where. Isn't TW only to be used against vandalism or give a proper reason? No reason was given, only what he wanted stated as a reason "Extra citations are not needed in the infobox for certain fields." "..and the extra ref tags aren't needed." Favre1fan93: "Again. why are you changing this?" spshu: "unexplain removal of cites". Then absolutely no reason given for reverting by Favre1fan93: "Reverted 1 edit by Spshu (talk) to last revision by Favre1fan93. (TW)", no reason given for a good reason, to keep cites. Then with little time to respond to his "warning" he reports me here with no discussion. Given all of 2 minutes to respond between warning and reporting. Spshu (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Werieth reported by User:Useddenim (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [10]
2. [11]
3. [12]
4. [13]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]

Comments:

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

Useddenim (talk) 05:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Explicit permission means nothing, the file is non-free and must be treated as so. Wikipedia does not accept for wikipedia only licensing. Werieth (talk) 09:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• This case is linked to the one reported a few hours ago here. In his talk page three different administrators (Masem, Diannaa and Kww) asked Werieth to not edit war in similar cases but to discuss the images at WP:FFD or at WP:NFCR, or even asking deletion (if suitable) as speedy deletions. Especially admin Masem informed him of the risks of being blocked/restricted/banned if he keeps with this attitude. He still don't hear that and keeps on edit warring with everyone who disagree with his interpretation of the rules. Here we are. Cavarrone 05:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Cavarrone Can you please keep your mouth shut when you do not understand policy? Werieth (talk) 09:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    • What I understand very well is what the other administrators and editors said. You have other suitable, proper ways to delete images that do not involve edit warring. Cavarrone 10:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Werieth: You claim “policy”, but then don’t give the specific clause or phrase, nor explain (your interpretation of) it. Useddenim (talk) 10:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
      • WP:NFCC#9 wasn't specific enough? Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace Werieth (talk) 10:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• No violation. NFCC criteria like #3a and #8 are clearly open to discussion, but WP:NFCC#9 isn't - this is (or was, before the image was altered) clearly a non-free usage outside articlespace, therefore was clearly a violation, and therefore 3RR did not apply to its removal whilst non-free. Black Kite (talk) 10:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The image should have been been tagged with {{PD-textlogo}} because it consists of simple shapes and text and is not eligible for copyright. I explained this on Werieth's talk page about how this whole edit war could have been avoided but he removed it from his talk page, [16]. Aspects (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I would have to disagree TOO is met in this case. Werieth (talk) 10:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Regardless, the image should have stayed out until that issue was settled. My personal opinion is that the image is right on the edge of textlogo territory. Let the Commons deletion discussion end, and if the image is kept, it can go back into the template. Black Kite (talk) 10:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The whole argument is now moot, as I have replaced the controversial image with a simplified version (which Werieth overlooked with revision 567326594 when he reflexively clicked undo within 90 seconds of the change without actually looking at what the change was). As an aside, the same simplification was done with the original logos: compare File:Logo AMT simplified.svg with File:Logo AMT.svg.
However, no-one has bothered to explain why the explicit permission on the image's page, “the copyright holder has granted permission for this image to be used in Wikipedia”—which is what prompted me to use the image in the first place—can be brushed aside. Useddenim (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Ill copy/paste something from my talk page archive, Unless a file is released under a free license, it must be treated as WP:NONFREE files that have been given "for wikipedia only" should actually be deleted on sight per User:Jimbo Wales, the founder of wikipedia, see related email from 2005 [17]. Our requirements for the usage of non-free media are high On wikipedia a file is either free or non-free, wikipedia only licenses are rejected as it goes against our mission, we could use a lot more non-free content than we do. However it would degrade our m:Mission Werieth (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

User:209.66.114.182 reported by User:Guanxi (Result: )

Page: IBT Media (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 209.66.114.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 02:46, 6 August 2013‎ 66.233.11.67

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:34, 6 August 2013‎ 209.66.114.182
2. 17:21, 6 August 2013‎ 209.66.114.182
3. 17:24, 6 August 2013‎ 209.66.114.182
4. 23:12, 6 August 2013‎ Terahertz7 <--- Same user as 209.66.114.182

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19]

Comments:

209.66.114.182 and Terahertz7 are very likely the same; I suggested they register an account and the next reversion and Talk update were under Terahertz7.

FWIW, if you look at 209.66.114.182's contributions, they mostly involve IBT Media, their personnel (e.g., Etienne Uzac, and organizations they own (e.g., International Business Times); I didn't look at the revisions to see if there is a history of similarly removing valid information.

Otherwise, I think the Talk page explains the issues well. I tried to avoid crossing the line into edit warring by incorporating updates to address the other editor's concerns, encouraging them to add the contradictory information they claim to possess, and providing suggestions on how to do it effectively (register, use a cite generator, etc.)

guanxi (talk) 02:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I should add as context the following, which may help you make sense of what you are seeing: IBT Media is in the news because it recently acquired Newsweek. This brought out concerns that IBT Media is closely affiliated with or controlled by David J. Jang, an evangelical minister popular in East Asia, who has a reputation for claiming he's the second coming of Jesus, connections with the Moonies, and running a cult-like sect. IBT Media has denied and according to the cited reports, tried to suppress claim about their relationship with Jang (and his Olivet University).

(Wikipedia absolutely should not take sides; I'm not suggesting otherwise. I'm just saying the claims about the relationship with Jang/Olivet are widely reported in RS's and should be included)

guanxi (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Do I need to do anything else, or change anything, in order for this to be addressed? I'm not sure if there's a problem with this post or if people are just busy. Thanks. guanxi (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

User:50.131.100.128 reported by User:Smuckola (Result: Warned)

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

[20]

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] [21]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]

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

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

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

Page

Tuxtla Gutiérrez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Harkthuk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC) ""
2. 02:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC) ""
3. 02:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC) ""
4. 02:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC) ""
5. 03:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Tuxtla Gutiérrez. using TW"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

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

Comments:

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

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

Page

Dimaraji (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Monosh Hojai Dimasa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC) "/* Proposed boundaries of the state */"
2. 06:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC) "/* Boundaries of Dimaraji State */"
3. 10:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC) "/* Areas to be carved out from Cachar District, Assam */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC) "General note: Introducing factual errors on Dimaraji. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 08:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC) "/* Boundaries of the proposed state */ new section"

Comments:

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

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

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

Page

Bangladesh Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Kmzayeem (talk): Rv stalker. let merger discussion finish. (TW)"
2. 18:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by Kmzayeem (talk): Nope. get consensus viw the merger discussion. (TW)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 17:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC) to 17:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
   1. 17:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC) "I do not fucking think so"
   2. 17:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 567516153 by Darkness Shines. (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

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

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

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

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

• No action Since two of the cited reverts are continuous edits, and DS self reverted the last one, that isn't persuading me to take action here, especially given that the other party is at 3RR here as well. The issue should be discussed on the talkpage regarding merging or redirecting and in which direction, and that is what I will be looking for. Black Kite (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

@Black Kite: You do realize that I have just had to ask for yw oedit protects because of this shit right? Wasting admin and editors time because these guys will not follow policy? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Pinkbeast reported by User:Taninao0126 (Result: No violation)

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jennifer_O%27Neill&oldid=566487956

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jennifer_O%27Neill&oldid=566303463 Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

yes, I tried to talk to Pinkbeast, who got personally insulting to me and uncivil. Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [August 7, 2013]

• No violation. The report is malformed. You don't include a single diff as you're supposed to do. I fixed the other errors. You also didn't notify Pinkbeast as you are required to in the instructions on this page. Pinkbeast has not edit warred. Nor have they been uncivil. You, on other hand, have been uncivil, and your edits have been non-netural and disruptive. I suggest you stop editing the article and discuss any changes you wish made on the article talk page in a respectful manner. Otherwise, you may be blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Niteshift36 reported by Gamaliel (talk) (Result: Warned)

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: Allen West (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Niteshift36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 03:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

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

1. 20:54, 6 August 2013 (edit summary: "Rmv good faith edits. The whole incident shouldn't be recounted in the lead and the opening sentence for the section is out of sequence")
2. 20:57, 6 August 2013 (edit summary: "/* Iraq interrogation incident */ clearly identified that West made the claim, so a non-primary source is acceptable.")
3. 12:02, 7 August 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 567474665 by Gamaliel (talk)changed to claim. It doesn't need proven to be true, only that the subject made the claim")
4. 17:34, 7 August 2013 (edit summary: "then why mention "unvetted"? I think it's notable. I'd be happy to hear why you don't think his own justification is relevant on the talk page.")
5. 20:21, 7 August 2013 (edit summary: "yes, I'll see the talk page....and we can leave this right there while we discuss it since there isn't a BLP issue")

• Diff of warning: here

—Gamaliel (talk) 03:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• There was no revert after your warning. You were correct that I had overlooked my removal of a separate issue in that article, however, there has been no revert since the warning. I did refuse to self-revert. I 'd also point out that you continued to revert after being asked to discuss it and failed to notify me of this discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• I apologize for not informing you yet, having been distracted by other browser tabs, but since you managed to find this 13 minutes after I posted it, you hardly needed the notification. Regardless, informing you was proper protocol, and the mistake was mine.
• I opened a discussion on the talk page and have continued to discuss this with you, despite your open hostility and despite the fact that the onus should be you to make your case and not me, since you are the one who wants to include this particular material in a BLP, as per standard Wikipedia practice.
• As an editor since 2007, you are expected to be aware of the 3RR, so the fact that you did not continue to revert after my courtesy notification is irrelevant. Besides, there was nothing to revert at that point, so you can hardly expect to get credit for not doing something you couldn't do anyway. What is entirely relevant is that you refused to correct your error in violating the 3RR even after the notification. Gamaliel (talk) 03:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Also, you count edits one and two as separate "reverts". They really weren't. Edit 2 is removing an inline note. It was easier to edit the sections separately. I've already stated that I did lose count because I was not looking at the previous day's edit. Yes, I found it, on my own, because it notified me you used my name. That doesn't relieve you of the requirement to notify me. What I have pointed out here is that there was no revert after warning and the norm here is to look at that fact. Citing a warning (as you did) and then not being able to show a revert after that seems fairly pointless, doesn't it? And you have no room to talk about hostility. Trotting out BLP in this case is BS because this isn't really a BLP issue. Regardless, this is about the reverts (and I have no doubt you were counting edits when you continued to revert, hoping I'd pass the 3RR), not your version of the issue under debate. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• If I wanted you to pass the 3RR, why did I warn you and wait several hours for you to self-revert before posting here? Don't waste everyone's time with this nonsense. Gamaliel (talk) 03:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• I already passed it sport. You are supposed to warn someone BEFORE they pass it. Warning that I'd already passed it isn't a warning, it's a notification at that point. So why would I revert myself at that point? And why am I even talking about this with you? You aren't the neutral party that will decide this. You're the admin that can't follow requirements (it's not a protocol, it's required). Niteshift36 (talk) 04:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• It's not my job to keep track of your edits, chief. I warned you as a courtesy and gave you ample time to self-revert and avoid this report. In return I've only gotten hostility. Indeed, no good deed goes unpunished. Gamaliel (talk) 04:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Did I say it was your job to keep track of my edits sunshine? No. Never. Did I say I believe you were keeping track of them buttercup? Absolutely. You've been plenty hostile, smug and condescending my friend. Play the victim all you want. There was no "good deed". There was you trying to use the 3rr simply to get your way (because if you reverted me, you'd violate the 3RR yourself). So you decided to 'do me a favor' and 'give me a chance' to make things the way you wanted them to be. I refused and you got all butt-hurt over it. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• I've only reverted twice, sorry. There goes your conspiracy theory. Gamaliel (talk) 04:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• 1 removal and 2 reverts of it. If you can list my removing of an inline note from another section as a "revert", then your removal counts as one, especially when the part you removed just happened to be where I just remove the inline note. And there's no conspiracy theory, but keep pretending like you're witty. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Warned. Let's try some facts. Niteshift breached WP:3RR. A warning before his 4th revert would have been helpful, but it wasn't required. Also, as he acknowledges, he could've self-reverted but did not do so. Also, Gamaliel's failure to notify him of this discussion does not forgive the breach; nor is the failure to notify sanctionable. Gamaliel has reverted three times, not twice. The first removal is a revert. Both of you are doing a piss-poor job of talking to each other, but Niteshift's attitude is significantly worse - and I don't want to hear argument about that from either of you. I'm uninvolved here, and that's my view. If Niteshift wants to avoid a block, he can agree to a 5-day restriction of not editing the article at all. User:Niteshift36, you must signify your acceptance of that condition here. User:Gamaliel, regardless of what Niteshift does, you cannot revert Niteshift's version, even after the 24-hour window ends. If that part of the article is going to be altered, it's going to have to be done by another editor. The best thing both of you can do is to discuss the material on the talk page in a civil and respectful manner and solicit comments from other editors. Please put the past behind you and focus only on the content.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• A permanent topic ban? You need consensus for that, you can't unilaterally do that.
• My first "revert" is only a revert only if you consider the deletion of any article content a revert. I am not claiming that I'm entitled to X number of reverts a day, I'm just challenging the accuracy of your statement. Obviously, talk page discussion is preferable.
• I have no intention of discussing anything further with an abusive editor as long as he continues to engage in abusive behavior. "Piss-poor" communication on my part? Perhaps, but I'm not sure what I should have done differently here. I discussed the matter on talk, I gave him a courtesy notice regarding his rule breaking, and I haven't engaged in anything remotely like the personal attacks and accusations regarding my motives that Niteshift has engaged in. Gamaliel (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not imposing a permanent topic ban on anyone. Your removal is a revert per policy. I'm disappointed at your reaction to my comments. I could have blocked both of you, Niteshift for breaching 3RR, and you for edit warring. Instead, I tried to find a reasonable compromise given all the circumstances, at the same time noting some of the problems with each of your conduct. Your comments about "abusive editor" are not helpful. What could you have done differently? How about not edit warring?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• And I am disappointed that you are so dismissive of his abusive behavior. Okay, let's find a compromise, a real one, not one that is just a matter of saying "play nice, kids" and pretending nothing happened. Are you willing to monitor the talk page discussion and step in if either party engages in abusive behavior? Gamaliel (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Please note that this noticeboard is not for content disputes or behavior complaints. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Stop being ridiculous. Behavior was specifically mentioned by User:Bbb23 above, so it's certainly germane to this discussion. Gamaliel (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• "I don't want to hear argument about that from either of you". Niteshift36 (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• If he didn't want to hear it, he shouldn't have addressed the matter in multiple comments. He is more than capable of responding to me himself without your concern trolling. Gamaliel (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm fine with not touching that article for 5 days. I freely admitted my error and have admitted it more than once. I lost count. It's that simple. I'll honor your request to not keep arguing about the other persons conduct, even if Gamaliel won't. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

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

User:141.217.233.69 reported by User:PantherLeapord (Result: Blocked for 72 hours)

Page

Swaminarayan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

141.217.233.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 567635010 by PantherLeapord (talk)"
2. 03:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 567630841 by NeilN (talk) Stop vandalizing the article"
3. 03:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 567630315 by NeilN (talk) All of this factual information has been cited and sourced."
4. Consecutive edits made from 03:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC) to 03:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
   1. 03:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 567629040 by NeilN (talk)"
   2. 03:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 567628813 by NeilN (talk)"
   3. 03:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 567628570 by NeilN (talk) Reverted Vandalism"
5. 03:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 567487427 by Manish 8726 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[28] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

More info here: User_talk:141.217.233.69#August_2013 --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

Page

Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

141.217.233.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bochasanwasi_Shri_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha&diff=567634168&oldid=567630615
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bochasanwasi_Shri_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha&diff=prev&oldid=567630260
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bochasanwasi_Shri_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha&diff=prev&oldid=567347790

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Talk:Bochasanwasi_Shri_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha#History_Section_-_Eventual_Successors
2. Talk:Bochasanwasi_Shri_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha#Controversy_Section

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on User's talk page

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A141.217.233.69&diff=559672675&oldid=559328447
2. User_talk:141.217.233.69#Stop_your_Tendentious_Editing

Kapil.xerox (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• User has been blocked for 72 hours by Dpmuk per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Clear_legal_threats. Gamaliel (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

User:96.248.15.44 reported by User:Daffydavid (Result: 1 week)

Page: Shake Weight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 96.248.15.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shake_Weight&diff=prev&oldid=565839522

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:05, 7 August 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 567484420 by Daffydavid (talk) they were wrong - nobody would challenge this interpretation of the innuendo. if you do, explain. otherwise, it needs no source")
2. 17:12, 7 August 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 567532893 by Daffydavid (talk) the action being a handjob action is referenced")
3. 08:14, 8 August 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 567639805 by AsceticRose (talk) there was no consensus, and the "community" is a small group of sensitive users")
4. 08:55, 8 August 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 567651599 by Daffydavid (talk) it's not vandalism")

—Daffydavid (talk) 09:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A96.248.15.44&diff=567653055&oldid=567484752 Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

• • • The accepted version by the community is Shake Weight has gained popular attention and parody due to the fact that its use involves pumping a phallic object (without even wikilink). I see no reason to change that. -AsceticRosé 05:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
      • it's innuendo. information on wikipedia should be presented as clearly as possible. we're not nbcnews.com, having to hide behind coy implication when identifying sexual acts. the sourced article describes a "suggestive exercise" performed by women "pumping away" at a "phallic-shaped device". if you wish to challenge my conclusion that this article is referring to a handjob, please do so here. 96.248.15.44 (talk) 08:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Did you happen to notice that you are commenting under a discussion about this very issue and consensus was indeed arrived at? Your arguments in the edit summaries state everything from - no ref required - to - already in ref (NO, it's not). Discuss it here as per BRD. --Daffydavid (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

please respond directly to my points above if you want to discuss this issue. 96.248.15.44 (talk) 08:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The source you quoted above does not say "handjob". You have also violated the 3RR rule and continue to re-insert your edit here despite being blocked previously for doing so. --Daffydavid (talk) 09:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

This has been going on since July 30th when the user added the change and has persisted in adding back the exact same change despite being blocked after a previous report here. It is the same 43 character addition every time. --Daffydavid (talk) 09:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• I reverted the edit twice and issued the IP warnings about a week ago. I see he has now been issued a "final" warning. One more incident of vandalism and they are blocked. Jusdafax 11:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The IP is now reported to WP:AIV twice. Jusdafax 11:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    • And is now blocked for a week. They got off easy in my view. Jusdafax 11:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Blocked - IP blocked one week by another admin for vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Hoardkey reported by User:Komitsuki (Result: No violation)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [29]
2. [30]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:

He reverted back my edits in Kevin S. MacLeod without any explanation. He technically vandalized the Korean Wikipedia. This might be offensive for some people, but please bear with it. There have been too many Korean or Korean-American vandals for the past few years in the English Wikipedia, often with very strong Korean nationalistic tendencies to edit articles. It doesn't help Wikipedia at all. I had negative experiences with them in the past. It makes me sad. Very sad to see Korean nationalism in Wikipedia. FYI, the Korean Wikipedia is full of rude in-fighting among the users and not to mention abuses from moderators are very common. It's very sad. Komitsuki (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Nobody's interested in this? This is a serious issue. Komitsuki (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

[Comment by uninvolved editor] Your two diffs are from separate articles. No edit-warring is occurring at either article. You might want to start by (politely) asking User:Hoardkey for an explanation on their talk page first, or on the talk page of the article in question. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• No violation Mark Arsten (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Black_Kite reported by User:Twobells (Result: No violation; Twobells warned)

Page: Gun politics in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Black_Kite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [31] Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=567528007
2. [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom&diff=567719649&oldid=567716360
3. [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom&diff=567719649&oldid=567719159
4. [diff]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom&diff=567717204&oldid=567716475

Comments: A user waded in and immediately tried to revert edits on political grounds suggesting that a highly respected British newspaper was 'right wing' suggesting that seemingly only left wing cites had 'value' on Wikipedia, I created a talk section on the issue, explained that politics had no place on wikipedia, that we must observe a neutral pov; however, my edit was once again reverted. The user went on to suggest that consensus was against me, this was a 'consensus of one, him. When I further attempted to lay out my position the user started to suggest that the poll was 'loaded' against all evidence to the contrary, that in itself was personal research yet once again he reverted my edits. Its almost as though this editor believes himself to be the arbiter of what resources editors may employ and that preference seems to be of a left-wing political nature. Twobells (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Well, an interesting filing, given that the first off the diffs above was actually by User:Nick Cooper, so that means I've made two reverts ... when the filing editor has made three (or more - I haven't looked at their previous edits on the article today). The filing editor clearly hasn't read either WP:3RR, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH or, indeed WP:BOOMERANG.
• They are trying to include this sentence [32] based on an online poll (unreliable to begin with) on a newspaper website - a newspaper which makes no pretence of its own opposition to gun control laws, and which is mainly read by the demographic which would be sympathetic to this position. Not only that, but the questioning wasn't even relevant to the gun control laws - it merely gave a list of five possible law changes (including such stupidities as "ban spitting in public") and asked respondents to choose one. Yet the editor appears to believe that they can synthesise that (even more unreliable) information to the entire British population.
• It would, as I said on the talkpage, be funny if it wasn't so ridiculous. To give an equivalent example, imagine if Fox News ran an online poll asking if Obama was doing a good job, and came up with 80% "No" votes; an editor then tried to insert a sentence in the Barack Obama article trying to assert that 80% of the US population held that view -it would be reverted immediately. And that's the situation here. Black Kite (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • On what grounds is the poll unreliable? That this highly respected newspaper doesn't pander to the left-wing in its entirety? The Daily Telegraph has never published an opinion on gun politics of the UK, it seems that so much of what this editor is saying is based upon assumptions, assumptions that because the newspaper isn't glaringly left-wing is MUST be pro gun, that against all evidence is somehow 'rigged' the poll, if the fact that this editor is seeming to suggest that only left- wing articles are citable it would be funny. Twobells (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I have never said that only left-wing opinions are citable - please feel free to provide a diff as to where I said that, Indeed, as I said, an equivalent online poll in The Guardian would be equally invalid. Now, let another admin come and look at the issue. Oh, by the way - [33] [34] [35] etc. etc. Black Kite (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Here are the results of the poll taking in both hard copy and online votes. From your 'right wing' language on the talk page and associated same on your reverts we can only assume that your position is political. Twobells (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
        • The Daily Telegraph has never taken a position on repealing handgun legislation which is what my edit involved. The above links are just personal comments, they are not the position of the newspaper, surely that is obvious? Twobells (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
          • And of course newspapers regularly post op-ed pieces which clash with their own positions. Black Kite (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
            • The Guardian does it all the time. Twobells (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
              • The Guardian is pretty unusual in that respect. Anyway, here's an actual Telegraph editorial - [36]. Black Kite (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
                • No its not, that is an eight year-old comment (not editorial) about a seventeen year-old piece on firearm legislation not about repealing the handgun ban which is what my entry was about, a very recent article an dpoll that balanced an old poll suggesting that British people wanted strong gun control. Twobells (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
        • It was purely an online poll. What on earth is a "hard copy vote"? Black Kite (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
          • Readers could phone in their votes as well, the poll ran in hard copy editions. Twobells (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Why has echo told me I was mentioned here twice? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Because the filing editor accidentally transcluded my entire talkpage onto the AN3 page. I fixed it. Black Kite (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• No violation. I rarely get into the content dispute that forms the predicate for a report here, but in this instance, User:Twobells is warned that if they continue to reinsert the material in the article, they risk being blocked for disruptive, non-neutral editing. There is no gray here. The material cannot be included for many reasons, including that the material is not even supported by the source, the source is unreliable, and the poll was an online poll, which is inherently worthless (the Telegraph even offered prizes to the "winner".--Bbb23 (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Wrong, the poll was both online and allowed the reader to phone in. How is the source unreliable? The material supports the argument if you read the article, as for 'disruptive' I wasn't the one reverting edits. Twobells (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC) 21:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it is you that wrong about this, Twobells. I see that you have been blocked (below), but while you are not editing, read up on Sampling bias please.Slp1 (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Twobells reported by User:Sjö (Result: Blocked)

Page

Gun politics in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Twobells (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 567385629 by Black Kite (talk)Left Wing-Right Wing? The sentence is neutral, wikipedia does not cherry pick according to political position"
2. 19:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 567716360 by Black Kite (talk) Reverted political bias see talk"
3. 21:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC) "I have laid it out as neutrally as I can, if you feel it is still pov don't revert go to the talk page"
4. 21:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 567733590 by Sjö (talk) The article has all the information someone needs it lays out the Bill and readers preferences and why, I have added a new cite to round out the issue"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

See also the request above Sjö (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week by User:Acroterion.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Jekjekjek3 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: )

Page: 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jekjekjek3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [37] (as 107.220.86.220 (talk · contribs · WHOIS))

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [38] (as 64.183.48.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS))
2. [39]
3. [40]
4. [41]
5. [42]
6. [43] (as 107.220.86.220)
7. [44] (as 107.220.86.220)
8. [45]
9. [46]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48]

Comments:
User:Erik notified Jekjekjek3 of the discussion on article talk page, but Jekjekjek3 just went ahead and re-added the content. Even though Jekjekjek3 hasn't violated 3RR, this dispute has become very protracted now, and since the editor is completely uncommunicative it makes it impossible to resolve the situation. Betty Logan (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)