Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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:FortLauderdale1911 reported by User:Elvey (Result: Locked)

Page

Jack Seiler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

FortLauderdale1911 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 21:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 21:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 21:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC) ""
5. 20:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Offender was warned 4x today, 2x before the most recent revert. I see no way to "select[] edits where [I] warned the offender. Elvey^(t•c) 00:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected (full) for one week. The new user's motives may be suspect, but the material they were removing cannot remain in the article. First, there are copyright violations. Second, there are WP:BLP violations (one of the two sources is a dead link, and such controversial material cannot be sourced to a dead link). And why in the world is there a quote from Jesus in the article? Did anyone read the material? I've therefore locked the page, as too many editors believe the material belongs, and removed the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick note that I'm off to eat dinner and won't be able to respond for a while if editors complain about my actions.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Cool. Some fair criticisms. Now lets separate the chaff from the wheat. I'll give it a shot. --Elvey^(t•c) 03:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Good to hear. Two more criticisms. First, the dead link source is not reliable. It's a political rag. Their About Us says: "Firedoglake.com (FDL) is a leading progressive news site, online community, and action organization consistently ranked as one of the most influential political websites." ([1]) Second, the article is short, and that much material attacking the subject is clearly WP:UNDUE.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been interacting IRL... can't follow up, at least for a while. Encourage you to copy relevant bits of your comments on the article content to the talk page for other editors to see, or give me the OK to do so.--Elvey^(t•c) 03:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Users Borsoka and Fakirbakir used disruptive edits and vandalism (Result: No violation)

Users Borsoka and Fakirbakir used disruptive edits and vandalism in order to erase an idea and a reference of a scientific work in the pages of Origins of Romanians.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Origin_of_the_Romanians) and section: Georgescu's statement They censored an historian who have several citations in that pages. Personal points of view and original research are not admitted. Eurocentral (talk) 06:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The censored phrase is: Romanian historian Vlad Georgescu wrote about the political reasons of the debate: Saxon and Hungarian scholars placed the origins of Romanians South of the Danube; Bulgarian historians do not admit that the Romanians had originated South of the Danube; Russian historians admitted the continuity theory but excepting Moldavia.{{sfn|Georgescu|1991|p=12} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurocentral (talk • contribs) 06:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

They acted together in order to censor a reference. It is not the first time they acted together trying to censor data. Eurocentral (talk) 06:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• No violation. This report is, of course, malformed. No action against the reported users. However, I recommend some sort of sanction against the filer based on this. EdJohnston?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I have topic-banned User:Eurocentral from Hungary and Romania for six months per WP:ARBEE and logged it in the case. See his talk page for details. EdJohnston (talk) 06:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Spotter 1 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Blocked)

Page: RT (TV network) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Spotter 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [2]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [3] Note that this *is* in fact a revert, of an edit from Nov 1 22:19 [4]. Basically, with this revert, Spotter 1 is resuming an edit war that occurred on Nov 1.
2. [5]
3. [6]
4. [7] slightly different from the previous, but essentially the same. The slight difference in the tagging is a pretty transparent attempt to WP:GAME the system and circumvent the 3RR restriction.

Previous edit warring on the article - note that these were not strictly speaking 3RR violations but rather tip-toeing right up to the line then backing off. Then coming back a few days later to resume it:

3 Reverts in less than 2 hours on October 29:

1. [8]
2. [9]
3. [10]

Depending on how you count it, either 3 or 4 reverts, over the same issue, on October 22:

1. [11]
2. [12]
3. [13]
4. [14]

It very much also looks like Spotter 1 is either tag-teaming and coordinating with User:Kenfree or actually is that user. The pattern is the same: make 3 reverts in regard to the POV tag, and after being reverted by multiple editors, come back in a few days and repeat. It's also quite possible that these are socks of indef banned user User:LarryTheShark (same issue, same style). Users other account User:Spotter 11 (possibly created in good faith).

By my count Spotter 1 has been reverted on this article by 5 or 6 different editors (including admins). So this isn't a two sided edit war, it's just one (actually two, if you include Kenfree) users who refuse to listen to others and are edit warring with a stubborn WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16] [17]. User responds/posts walls of text, rants and soapboxing (these are just on the article talk page, he also posted similar to other venues, including other user's talk pages) or engages in some kind of "I know you are but what am I?" argumentation (exs. [18], [19], [20], [21]). Basically, rational discussion is impossible with this user.

Comments:

The edit warring today constitutes 4 reverts in less than one hour and 45 minutes. The edit warring on the two other days is 3 reverts in less than 2 hours, each.

• Blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

In the first place, user:Volunteer Marek is using this administrative space to cast aspersions against me. This is typical of his sneaky, backbiting style (with which he has populated the talk page of the RT TV Network), but my one protection against this is supposed to be that users are required to inform those users whose names are involved in incident reports. Volunteer Marek did not follow this policy. I only learned of this incident report when visiting the talk page of its victim (no exaggeration, see below), Spotter 1, this morning. I have an unblemished history of editing here are Wikpedia over several years, and if Volunteer Marek believes that I am engaged in any illicit practice, or have assumed alter-identities on Wikpedia, he has the responsibility to report it and have the problem openly addressed. He should not be at liberty to continue his incessant calumny against me here in this administrative area, and especially not without some notification, so that I might defend myself. This by itself should lead honest administrators to question his motives and integrity.

As to his report of supposed "edit warring" and the subsequent, peremptory ban of Spotter 1 (before he has even been given an opportunity to defend himself -- it would appear from Spotter 1's talk page history that this user was banned by Bbb23 only 17 minutes after being notified of the "discussion" by user:Volunteer Marek, strongly suggesting collusion between the two ):

"Edit warring" as Wikipedia officially defines it relates to content disputes, which is to say, to the content of Wikipedia articles themselves. But the reversions in this case were clearly attempts to restore, not content, but a tag, an NPOV/Secttion tag that fairly and accurately reflected not only the ongoing editorial dispute over this question in the RT TV Network talk page, but also in the recently initiated discussion on Wikipedia's Administrators' Neutral Point of View noticeboard. Thus, the tag SHOULD be automatic for that page. That Spotter 1 made these attempts to place it there is to his credit...it is not edit warring at all, but rather editorial responsibility. I am astounded that someone who has been assigned administrative responsibility, such as the administrator who banned this user for this responsible effort, chose to ban this user, instead of confronting those, like Volunteer Marek, who wish to keep Wikipedia readers in the dark about this editorial dispute by deleting the NPOV tag each time it is posted. Volunteer Marek's "report" on this page must be understood in context of the scrutiny his tendentious editing of the RT TV Network page has received on the NPOV noticeboard.

I request an immediate review by a responsible administrator of this penalization of a responsible editor, a travesty that runs counter to both the letter and spirit of Wikipedia's policies, as above cited. Kenfree (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

References

User:McGeddon reported by User:Urammar (Result: Filer blocked)

Page:Alien (creature in Alien franchise) Alien (creature in Alien franchise) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: McGeddon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alien_(creature_in_Alien_franchise)&oldid=633070133

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alien_(creature_in_Alien_franchise)&oldid=633070133

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23]

Comments: This user is intentionally attempting to abuse the RFC system, resetting it under false pretense after it elapsed naturally, with an overwhelming majority for change of article, the user is continuing to block the majority approved change of article, restarting the edit war that got us here in the first place

Urammar (talk) 00:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked Urammar for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

User:NebY reported by User:Jackboston (Result: Filer indeffed)

Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
NebY: NebY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freshfields_Bruckhaus_Deringer&oldid=632304135

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freshfields_Bruckhaus_Deringer&oldid=633124596
2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freshfields_Bruckhaus_Deringer&oldid=633126190
3. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freshfields_Bruckhaus_Deringer&oldid=633125860

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Freshfields_Bruckhaus_Deringer

Comments:

I've watched this page for some time before creating an account, and the above user is engaging in disruptive and frankly unnecessary behaviour on the above page which borders on some form of edits war/vandalism. The user has repeatedly edited the page to remove sourced material and has acted utterly arbitrarily in so doing. The user removes historical references in the "history" section of the page and seems incapable of understanding why this is in fact relevant when explaining the above firms "history." The user also considers him/herself so educated on the subject that they dismiss as irrelevant a book precisely about the above firm. The book is not as he/she states by the firm itself, but is written by the legal historian Judy Slinn http://www.amazon.co.uk/A-History-Freshfields-Slinn-Judy/dp/B002622CHO

The user has also removed information from an interview with the firm's former managing partner which was clearly relevant and sourced - purely because the interview was reproduced online in a blog. While there may be a couple of Peacock words on the above page, following Wikipedia guidelines, this does not mean that the user should simply "gut" the page of all useful or relevant information. Nor does it explain why the user removed information regarding the firms legal work on the 2012 Olympics, or information about the location of Freshfields offices - which would be relevant to any user of the page.

Information like this - historical and otherwise - is common on other international law firm pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_%26_Cromwell

The users behaviour is inexplicable to me, and is not at all consistent with Wikipedia editing guidelines.

Should this page be protected?

• Blocked Jackboston indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Malik Shabazz reported by User:2602:306:BD61:E0F0:E835:AD18:9168:84EF (Result: Semi-protected)

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: Eric Holder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [24]
2. [25]
3. [26]
4. [27]
5. [28]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29] [30] [31]

Comments:

The problem has now been sufficiently addressed by all parties. Report again if new issues arise. EdJohnston (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Outrageous, vulgar and disruptive behavior for any editor. Far worse for an ADMIN! What kind of example is this in how to calmly and rationally resolve disagreement and edit collaboratively toward an NPOV result? 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:E835:AD18:9168:84EF (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC) I reverted three times, not four. The IP has been edit-warring all weekend (from various IPs), and the article has now been protected. I recommend the IP be given a strong warning about WP:BOOMERANG. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC) The editor just admitted he edit-warred. But his defense was that he "reverted three times, not four?" Interesting, since I don't believe it's called "4RR". But I actually listed five times. Also, the editor made absurd assertions he cannot support. Namely, who was I edit-warring with "all weekend" - and where is their 3RR complaint? And if it was "from various IPs" how in heaven does that point to me? Obviously, not all similar IPs are the same person. This editor just needs to take responsibility for his own actions, and stop finger-pointing, rationalizing and deflecting. He admitted here that he edit warred. Even before that, he dared me to report him. As though, because he's an admin, he is some entitled entity, above the rules. Perhaps he is. If he isn't blocked, like any other editor would be - and for a significant period, because of the totally unnecessary and vulgar tone he took from the beginning in the edit summaries - then I guess he's right. Also, the page certainly doesn't need IP protection. You'll notice that the last edit before protection wasn't from an IP. It was from him. But to semi-protect/block such a prominent page, over a single disagreement regarding a single word,(now addressed), is, I think, pretty excessive and unnecessarily extreme. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:E835:AD18:9168:84EF (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC) May I suggest that you actually, you know, read WP:Edit warring to see the definition of a revert and what a 3RR violation is? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC) I see. And just which part (that you seem to believe justifies your behavior) would you have me read? This part?: Which defines a revert as: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours." Or the part right below it: "any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times?" Meanwhile, may I suggest that you actually, you know, read WP:IMPARTIAL to see the definition of neutrality and what is meant by: "A neutral characterization." Or may I even suggest that you actually, you know, read WP:CIVIL to see the definition of civility and what blocking for incivility is? 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:E835:AD18:9168:84EF (talk) 04:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Did you really tell him to read WP:CIVIL even though you called him an "ignorant ass" and a "boldfaced liar"? This is truly a WP:BOOMERANG. In fact and just like he said, two of the links you provided us (here and here) are actualy self-reverts which are not counted as "reverts" per WP:EDITWAR. No matter how much you would like to WP:WIKILAWYER, it does not change anything. Ironically, you reverted four times in the last 24 hours (here: [32][33][34][35]). You also reverted twice on November 8th as well (here: [36][37] Once again, just as Malik said, you did consistently revert throughout this weekend. In the end of all of this, you will be the one blocked and not him. Better luck next time IP. AcidSnow (talk) 04:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC) AcidSnow: My questions for you would be, did you really just ignore his posts that I "cut the bullshit... your head is in the sand" and his continued personal attack calling me a "wing-nut"? Not to mention my request that he "Save your editorializing for another project." and my efforts at "neutrality"? Plus, did you really just ignore the fact that it was me who attempted compromise by leaving this message on his talk page: "I have replaced it with a less inflammatory term - since you also had problems with the word "purported." Hopefully, this resolves the issue to your satisfaction."? Yes, apparently you did. Also, I hate to burst your bubble, Acid, but just because I read newsworthy articles and reviewed their edit logs, doesn't make me every other IP who did the same. I saw recent issues raised in the edit summaries and I agreed with some of those editors. So my edits reflected that WP:CONSENSUS. Or did that common sense reality never cross your mind while you were busy leaping to your false conclusions? In fact, my first edit was a revert of a similar "looking" IP here. So, sorry, but your obvious cherry-picking, make you a pretty bad, and a pretty transparent, attack dog. So you should try again, Acid. But next time, perhaps you should stop hurling ridiculous accusations of policy vios while at the same time accusing someone else of WP:WIKILAWYER. It makes you look hypocritical. But worse, you just come off looking like a troll. And again Bbb23 , I think it does a disservice to the readers of this project to block a currently newsworthy article because of a debate over one word: that is already being addressed in this forum. That's the definition of overkill. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:E835:AD18:9168:84EF (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC) You honestly must be joking. I missed nothing and let alone was I "cherry picking". I am well aware of what Malik stated bur you had already covered it so there really was no point in repeating it. You also stated, however, "may I even suggest that you actually, you know, read WP:CIVIL to see the definition of civility and what blocking for incivility is?". Shockingly, this is comes just after you called him an "ignorant ass" and a "boldfaced liar". So it's a clear case of WP:BOOMERANG to tell him to be civil when you fail to do the same, which is very hypocritical. You even created a false Edit War Report and attempted to pass two edits as reverts when their not (once again see WP:EDITWAR). That being said, it doesn't matter wither or not you had "consensus" "backing you up" nor does going to the talk page first change anything; what does matter is who broke 3RR even after they were warned not to do so. Ironically, you don't even bother to refute the evidence ([38], [39], [40], [41], [42], and [43]) that I brought forth regarding your consistent reverts throughout this weekend. That being said, this IP that was edit waring earlier this weekend is yours which once again rDNS confirms (yours and pervious IP). This IP not only comes from the country, but also the same state and city. In fact, they are edit warring on the same article and even the same issue! Coincidence? Highly unlikely. You can deny this all you want but it's don't change reality. As anyone can see, none of my statements were "ridiculous" which you oddly claim them to be so. By the way, calling me an "attack dog" and a "troll" after I asked you to remain civil does not help your case even the slightest but rather greatly diminishes it. Nor do I get anything if you or Malik is blocked. So better luck next time IP. But In the end of all of this, I will encourage you once again to remain WP:CIVIL. AcidSnow (talk) 05:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC) Acid, pull up a chair. This is going to take a while. There is an old saying, attributed to Einstein, that: "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" is the definition of insanity. By that definition, you must be certifiable. Because for what purpose do you continue this harangue? I suspect you're just one of those unpleasant little people who is taken with the sound of your own voice. While I won't give you the incessant platform you clearly crave I will address the nonsense that are your various claims this one final time. But first, we have to establish foundation and you have to establish your standing in this discussion. So the obvious first question is: "Who the hell are you?" A review of your personal page is, perhaps fittingly, obtuse. Hello, my name is AcidSnow...... says nothing. But even more telling than what it says, is what it doesn't. It doesn't say you're an admin. It doesn't say you've been entrusted with any particular rights or privileges by this community. But further review does say your account has only been around since 2013 - yet you spend an unusual and inordinate amount of time on messageboards; and pages so obscure that, over a year later, your last edit on them is still the most current. But how any of that qualifies you to insert yourself into this particular discussion has yet to explained. As you are personally powerless to impact this process. Nor have you established any direct relevance, if any, that you have to it. But now having established that you failed to pass voir dire here, on even the most basic level, I'll nonetheless address (again) your various and specious claims. If you had even the slightest concept of balance, you actually would have avoided my claim that you were blatantly cherry-picking the record to craft your attack at me. If you had any notion of balance you would have said "yes Malik did this, but so did you." Instead the best you could muster was this tripe: "I am well aware of what Malik stated but you had already covered it so there really was no point in repeating it." To use another of your favorite phrases: "You honestly must be joking." But then you doubled down on your own hypocrisy, by then feeling the need to "repeat" the same nonsense you posted originally. To quote you again: "there really was no point in repeating in." But yet, you did! I guess there are no mirrors in your world. So here again - and for the last time - are your answers. More than, frankly, you deserve. Because once again: "Who the hell are you?" I correctly pointed out the section regarding blocking for incivility, which you've referenced now twice. But where have you even once acknowledged Shabazz's original comments or condemned him for making them - which caused my mentioning that section in the first place? Nowhere. So that reduces your "condemnation" to that of a one-sided hack. Feel free to quote me, because, based upon your actions, the characterization is entirely accurate. You're like the clueless and incompetent ref who calls a personal foul for the retaliation and does nothing about the originating offense. Quote me there too. You - or Shabazz - insults me? I let you know what an insult feels like. That isn't uncivility. That's retributive justice. This isn't a church and I don't "turn the other cheek." Besides, he - and now you - have made a false claim twice. That I edited "all weekend" when I edited one day. Second, you keep regurgitating WP:EDITWAR while you are clearly oblivious to WP:3RR within it. Please read it so you'll actually understand the rules you're quoting. My report factually chronicled his edits. There's no way to falsify the edit log. It is what it is. Regarding your claim about what "matters" WP:CONSENSUS always matters. It is a policy here. I suggest you read that too. While you're at it, also read WP:TALKDONTREVERT because, despite your failure to mention it, that is exactly what I did here, here and here. And again, I was the one who warned Shabazz about 3RR here and even noted his continued edit warring after that here. So before you make claims, you would be wise to get your facts straight. Regarding the IP issue, already asked and answered. I worked on a current and newsworthy article. One that hundreds, if not thousands, of people read just this past weekend - because it was in the news. The fact that I also read the edit history, because I found something of concern in the article and saw that others had found the same thing, would be unspectacular to all but the most myopic conspiracy theorists, like you. The fact that my IP is also in a major city populated by a few million people would also be unremarkable to all - but the conspiracy theorists like you. They're not all me. In fact, you also ignored the fact that my very fist edit was to undo another similar IP from the same - wait for it - country, state and city (apparently)! But maybe in your conspiracy world, I undid myself just to later, throw you off the scent. And FYI, other editors have addressed the exact same issue I did, since we started here! But in your conspiracy world, maybe we're all just the same person! Just wow. It would be laughable if it wasn't so ridiculous. Because you do make a truly ridiculous prosecutor. Which once again, begs the prevailing question: "Who the hell are you?" Finally, here's the way it works, since you've also consistently failed to assume good faith, I'm really not feeling particularly constrained by your vacuous calls for "civility." Your entire attacks have been decidedly uncivil. So here's the bottomline: if you lie about me, my actions, or my intentions, then you're a liar. Plain and simple. I said Shabazz was a liar for no other reason than that he was. You've made the same claims, so you too are a liar. You've maligned me with no proof. That's called lying. If you find that uncivil, then the solution is simple: really, just stop being a liar. So, better luck next time to you, Acid. But in the end of all this I will encourage you in future, to a) get your facts straight before you go tilting at windmills and making asinine and unsubstantiated accusations; and b) stop sticking your nose where it doesn't belong. Someone far less civil than myself, is very likely to take offense. And the response, which you will have entirely deserved, won't be nearly as measured as mine has been. And will likely and justifiably be decidedly more uncivil. Meanwhile, what I can't help but notice, loyal Sancho, is that even Shabazz, has had preciously little to say lately in his own defense. Likely because even he now knows he went too far. As an editor, but esp. as an admin. If he can't hold himself to a higher standard, then he's in no position to balk at anyone else. So while you've been yapping, all we've heard from him is crickets. But apparently, that's just the arrogance that comes with the knowledge that his fellow admins wouldn't block him, no matter how deserving or egregious his conduct is. Policies, no matter how sacrosanct, are only enforced based upon who is breaking them. And depending on that, if you complain about the wrong person, the open secret here is that you'll submit yourself to a chorus of folks shouting WP:BOOMERANG. It's actually quite funny. It's certainly not how the policy is written, but clearly it's how it is enforced and the game is played around here. I request a block for edit warring and instead the page itself gets blocked - er, "semi-protected" - but only for all IPs. Yet curiously, neither individual party was blocked. So I guess both editors were right, and the page was wrong. Funny what passes for a proper solution around here, isn't it? This, even after I've already said I'm done with that article. But no matter. In the caste system that is WP, IPs are the untouchables. Nevermind WP:URIP2. Also, no need to wonder why having my own account does not appeal to me in the least. But the truly saddest part that you, and the actual admins on this board have consistently failed to address, is why we're here. Which is because I complained about an edit that was biased on a BLP and I tried - several times - to rewrite it neutrally. If you don't understand that, you can review everything from WP:BLP to WP:NPOV and everything in between. That's the real issue here and yet it's the one thing you consistently have avoided addressing because you wanted to talk about other crap. And you'll likely want to continue this too. But we're done here. I won't ever change your mind and you're not the type to ever admit you're wrong. And ultimately, it really doesn't matter what you think. Because for the final time: "Who the hell are you?" SO yup, we're done. Have the last word. But I won't bother to come back here to read it. I'm done feeding the troll. Whew, that was long! But in the words of Shabazz, to "cut through this bullshit" it had to be done. The End. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:E835:AD18:9168:84EF (talk) 11:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC) Once again, you have failed to listen or at least stop your attacks against people on Wikipedia. Normally in these situations I would just leave, but seeing how you have chosen to blacken my name by still calling me a "troll" along with a "liar", "incompetent", "clueless", and "ridiculous" even after I asked you to stop for the second time. Ironically, this shows how "civil" you are even though you claim to be. First, off not being admin doesn't change anything. I may not posses any of the things you call "privileges" but that doesn't ban me from being Involved in discussion here or anywhere else. Nor does not having a completely User Page change the fact that I am a long standing contribute here on Wikipedia. That being said I have yet to make any WP:PERSONALATTACKS against you or any one else on Wikipedia. Ironically, I can't say the same about you ("ignorant ass", "boldfaced liar", "attack dog", and "troll"). Calling someone out for their mistakes and failing to adhere to Wikipedias polices aren't personal attacks which you oddly claim them to be. So you fail to understand WP:PERSONALATTACKS. If you truly believe that I have made a personal attack against you then why don't you make a report? You seem very confident that I did so the report should go smoothly. Anyways, you seem to love to WP:WIKILAWYER but fail to understand other policies as well, for example WP:Edit War. If you had actually read it instead of only asking other to, you would know that It clearly states: "The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR: Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting")". This is quite relevant seeing how you accused him of violating 3RR. In fact, two of his edits are clearly self-reverts (this one and this one), which according to the policy don't count. As anyone can see, not only did he not break it you also created a false Edit War Report. Ironically this comes after you demanded others to read the policy. So it's not surprising that your the one who broke 3RR by revert four times: here, here, here, and here. In regards to Malik's statements were you claim I don't condemn them, I did. I suggest you read WP:CONSENSUS and it's regards to it: "If no one responds, you have silent consensus ". So I clearly did acknowledge it and did condemn it by not going into detail. So my actions weren't a "one-sided hack" which you foolishly claim them to be. Consensus may count in regards to editing Wikipedia but not at the Edit War Noticeboard where one is discussing violating another policy which doesn't need it. Not only did you fail to comprehend WP:EDITWAR and WP:CONSENSUS, the same can be said about WP:BOOMERANG. You state that your actions don't reflect "this policy". First off, it's not a policy at all in fact, it's simply just a concept. So it's quite clear that you haven't even read the majority of policies that you have asked others to read. That being said, the essay states: "In other cases a person might complain about another editor's actions in an incident, yet during the events of that incident they've committed far worse infractions themselves.". This is exactly what's going on in this discussion. You oddly claim that: "not how the policy is written", when it certainly is! Shockingly, you also fail to understand the simplest of policies such as assuming good faith. I will quote the policy once again since you refuse to believe anything that I have stated: "When doubt is cast on good faith, continue to assume good faith yourself when possible. Be civil and follow dispute resolution procedures, rather than attacking editors or edit-warring with them". You, however, did the complete opposite by making numerous personal attacks, edit warring, and ultimately violating 3RR (here's all the diffs for everyone to see: [44], [45], [46],[47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], and [53]). Ironically, you accuse me of failing to do the same. This is quite the opposite and if you had actually read the policy you would know this as well: "If you wish to express doubts about the conduct of fellow Wikipedians, please substantiate those doubts with specific diffs and other relevant evidence, so that people can understand the basis for your concerns". As anyone can see, none of my actions were personal attack let alone disruptive.This exactly what I did. Anyways, ,that IP you reverted does not come the from the same location as you. It may live in the same country but not the same state let alone city which even rDNS confirms (yours and theirs. As I stated earlier, you were a matter of fact edit warring throughout this weekend with this IP. As pointed out earlier, both of you come from the same country, but also the same state and city. In fact, they are edit warring on the same article and even the same issue! In other words, it's simply just you which a simple rDNS check can confirm (yours and theirs). In fact, the IP stops editing on Wikipedia upon your "arrival". Coincidence? Highly unlikely. If it isn't you why don't you just message it and ask it to defend you? Oh wait you can't because it's a Static IP and you don't poses it now. You can deny this all you want but you can't gain the system. That being said, I wouldn't need to responded to any of your other replies seeing how your "done feeding the trolls". Which is basically "when the heat gets to hot" you choose to run. So better luck next time IP. AcidSnow (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected (semi) for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Way to go, my friend. "Bad page!" 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:E835:AD18:9168:84EF (talk) 12:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

In regards to Bbb23 protection of the page, it was for the best. Your a static IP and blocking you won't do us any good since you can just reappear as another IP. This is exactly what you did when your router pushed you into a fresh IP that had yet to be used on Wikipedia. That being said, protecting it squashes all of your IPs in move. AcidSnow (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2014 (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:Torga reported by User:Ryulong (Result: Blocked)

Page

Gamergate controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC) "Unsourced claims that makes this article bias"
2. Consecutive edits made from 05:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC) to 05:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
   1. 05:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "Making it little less biased"
   2. 05:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 05:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633191953 by Ryulong (talk)"
4. 05:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633192157 by Ryulong (talk)"
5. 05:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633192329 by Tarc (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* November 2014 */"
2. 05:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* November 2014 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. [54] (I'm not sure if this counts)

Comments:

Torga has made undiscussed and controversial changes to the lead paragraph. I reverted him once, informed him he should go to the talk page to seek consensus, and he has not. He has also repeatedly removed a larger personalized message I sent to him on his user talk regarding almost identical edit warring he did last week. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Note. If you're correct, Ryulong, about the refererence misunderstanding (see below), then it follows that Torga is off the hook for his reverts of the ref and did not breach WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

  He clearly violated 3RR as he was intending to restore his contested content but when Tarc reverted the wrong thing he kept reverting Tarc again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd no idea that he had been edit warring, but just noticed that he has reverted a change of mine removing an ancient and outdated POV tag that was supposed to be removed several days ago. Perhaps the term should be "tendentious editing" rather than 3RR. --TS 12:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Although I understand Ryulong's logic, which goes to motive, I've not blocked tendentious editors whose reverts were BLP-exempt, even though their motive was obviously biased. However, Torga had the chutzpah to revert yet again (Tony's edit), which put him over the top regardless. Reverting while a report here is pending and without commmenting here as to why is generally not a good idea.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Ryulong reported by User:Tutelary (Result: No action)

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

Gamergate controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by Torga (talk): Unsourced and undiscussed changes. (TW)"
2. 05:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Torga (talk): Bring up your proposed changes on the article's talk page when they are challenged with a revert. (TW)"
3. 05:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633192207 by Torga (talk)"
4. 05:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "this is a ref that NorthBySouthBaranof mistakenly doubled that was then removed from the article text but not from the references list; note that this ref is identical to the one IDed as "OTMGrant""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This will be the third time I have reported Ryulong here. The first time was the 15RR report which was marked Stale 15 hours later, 2nd time was an amicable solution of remaining and urging himself to 3RR, and this time, fragrantly breaking 3RR in that same promise. Tutelary (talk) 05:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Where is the attempt to resolve the dispute? Or the warning to the user? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Fixing someone else's mistake in reverting something wrong should not be considered a revert here. I'm not at 3RR.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Tarc reverted Torga. Torga reverted back. You reverted Torga. Additionally, Ryulong is an ex administrator. Ryulong has been on this site for years and has 200k edits. I have to assume by now that they are competent enough to monitor their own reverts. Tutelary (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I reverted Torga three times, made an unrelated edit, and saw that Tarc and Torga were now edit warring over that unrelated edit rather than what Torga was originally trying to put onto the article. That re-correction should not count as a revert.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Note. It looks to me like Ryulong is correct in his analysis, but I'd like to hear from Tarc.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Two cents Ryulong's repeated presence on this board is neither coincidental or innocuous. At some point somebody with the tools required should take into account the broad ramifications of his continued battle ground mentality on the small slice of this project which manages to engender so much anger. At some point the possessive, yet technically permissible, agitation needs to stop. It's rare that an editor so vulgar and aggressive is given a pass, so many times. GraniteSand (talk) 09:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

What does this have to do with anything?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It has to do with your endless presence here because you're combative and rude. But, I'd imagine you knew that. GraniteSand (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors taking potshots at participants from the sidelines is not helpful. Tarc (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, there was a bit of confusion within that specific time frame. Torga, a single-purpose account who has done little but edit-war against consensus and post continuous screeds about same on the talk page, was up to the usual. During the attempts to restore the neutral and supported-by-sources text, Ryulong and I appeared to overlap, as when I thought I was removing Torga's junk, it was in fact accidentally restoring an unused ref. Ryulong's edit to fix this was a revert in the technical sense, but it was to fix my error. It should not be counted towards anything. The filer needs to be reminded that in the future, it'd be a good idea if he actually investigated first rather than simply making 1, 2, 3, 4 tic marks on a tally sheet. Tarc (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Declined. Thanks, Tarc. Based on the unusual sequence of events, I'm not taking any action against Ryulong.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It's intolerable. It used to be that if you could not use the site without breaking the rules every day you'd be warned not to 3RR, even if you thought you had an excuse, and that would be the end of it, or else there would be another end to it. It's not intolerable that Ryulong would behave in such a way because humans are humans, but it is untolerable that they are praised for it regularly and that most of the editors they encounter are new and take or are blamed for sock puppetry. why are there not so many sock puppets on the contested articles where people do not behave like Ryulong? But who cares. This site is about making a laugh and a name for yourself isn't it? Isn't that why we all use our real names? Ryulong is brought to this page many times per week and even 15rr does not illicit an admin intervention. Culturing a hostile environment. ~ R.T.G 16:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Somebody please tell me I'm seeing things. The subject of an ANI removes a negative comment about them [55] and gets nothing but a friendly revert? [56] Hello? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 06:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

My bad, the negative comment was a procedural error because the ANI was closed. I got it. I still would have preferred the late comment be removed by an "uninvolved" party. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 06:16, 12 November 2014 (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:190.99.0.119 reported by User:Mega-buses (Result: Blocked)

Page: Disney Channel (Latin America) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and others (associated with Disney Channel)
User being reported: 190.99.0.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Last revert

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:18 (UTC), 5 November 2014‎
2. 20:56 (UTC), 6 November 2014
3. 17:31 (UTC), 7 November 2014
4. 06:49 (UTC), 10 November 2014 (Last IP edition)
5. 00:17 (UTC), 9 November 2014 (on Disney Channel (Italy)
6. 19:40 (UTC), 8 November 2014 (on Disney Channel (Europe)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:
This IP add several times the File:Disney Channel 2014 logo.png in diferents articles (like Disney Channel (Latin America)). This image may only be placed on the article "Disney Channel". See Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 57#File:Disney Channel 2014 logo.png. Disney Channel (Latin America) was protected one day, but the next day, the IP restored the file again. --Mega-buses (discusión / Talk) 16:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi reported by User:Choor monster (Result: Restrictions lifted)

Page: Helen Hooven Santmyer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Winkelvi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [57]

Comments:

This is a continuation of a previous report, now archived, of me by Winkelvi: [58] That concluded with: "Both editors warned. The next person who undoes any change by the other party may be blocked without notice, unless consensus was previously obtained on the talk page. EdJohnston" The edit diff'ed above removed "obscurely" (my text), without attempting to use the Talk page first, as per EdJohnston's instructions. Choor monster (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm completely confused. Further, this report seems petty to me and not in the best interest of the article. I wasn't trying to edit war or cause disruption. There was a cite needed tag there for weeks, nothing was produced cite-wise to prove the book was published "obscurely". To me, the use of "obscurely" seems/seemed POV and unencyclopedic -- especially without any kind of reference to support it. I was perusing the article recently, saw the tag had been untouched and nothing referenced applied, so I simply removed the word. I honestly didn't even remember that it was a bone of contention prior to that. No edit warring intended. If he has something to add reference-wise to support use of "obscurely", I certainly see no reason then why the adjective can't be put back in. But to accuse me of edit warring in what appears to be an obvious move toward retribution is looking for punitive action, not something that will keep disruption from occurring at the article. Indeed, this report smells quite disruptive to me. There was no attempt from Choor Monster to discuss on the talk page further after the last post I put up there nearly a month ago (see here:[59]). In fact, four days after I last posted on the article talk page, Choor Monster put a barnstar on my talk page that stated "A barnstar for fixing peacock language and other minor fixes on Helen Hooven Santmyer" (see here:[60]). To say I'm completely confused by this report in light of all this is an understatement. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Note. It looks to me like one of the bones of contention in early October was over the material you just changed (removing the word obscurely). The only issue for me is whether after a bit over a month from EdJohnston's warning, you should be blocked. Although it has nothing to do with conduct, the word "obscurely" is supported in the cite to the NYT obituary, although I might have worded the material in the article slightly differently. My weak inclination is to block you (self-reverting might help, btw), but I'm punting this to Ed.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

As I said, Bbb23, I am not in any way trying to be disruptive. I have no problem self-reverting, but do wish other wording would be used. Reading "obscurely" in the obituary doesn't convince me that it's really the case. In fact, if anything, it seems that some too-close paraphrasing has occurred by lifting the term directly from the obituary. Moreover, I now remember noting the too-close paraphrasing of sources back in October, this just further solidifies it. Especially without a better source than the obituary to support that the book was "obscurely" publiished. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Done [61]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't a complete revert, but you did restore the word "obscurely". Choor monster, are you okay with closing this with no action based on Winkelvi's good faith revert? BTW, Winkelvi, the NYT obituary is a perfectly reliable source.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that obituaries are considered reliable sources for factual information such as family names, dates, and the like. That said, celebrity obituaries in the NYT are frequently written by writers who choose to use prose and embellished language in tribute rather than just reporting the facts about an individual. "Obscurely" is used, but why is it used? There is no explanation as to why the author of the obituary believes Ohio University Press published the novel in obscurity. We wouldn't accept such vagueness in an article (it wouldn't pass GA or FA without explanation) so why are we accepting it as it is just because it was included in the obituary? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with your take on the obit, but, no matter. It's a content issue and, as such, you can go the usual route of seeking a consensus on what belongs and what doesn't belong in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with User:Winkelvi's self-revert which restores 'obscurely'. But why isn't it possible to clarify the wording? The obituary explains (a) only a few hundred copies were sold by Ohio State University Press, (b) they didn't normally publish novels (Per the Edwin McDowell article in the NYT). So the point of 'obscurely' is that the novel didn't come to general attention. The original 'obscure' publication is intended to contrast with the 'real' publication by G. P. Putnam's Sons a few years later. If we keep only the word 'obscurely' in our summary it loses the meaning of the original. It doesn't need any further citation since the facts come from the obituary and the other NYT article. It just needs the context to be explained better. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Considering your response further, Ed, it seems the appropriate thing would be for Choor monster to make that change, unless he indicates here he would be fine with me making the change. Whatever the case, I'm now wondering how long it will be before we are free to freely edit the article and if the no reverts mandate is interminable. Further clarification would be appreciated. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Any evidence of cooperation between the two of you would be enough reason to lift the mandate. It would be a good idea for User:Choor monster to respond to the list of proposals you put on the talk page on October 11. EdJohnston (talk) 02:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Ed, you are reading the Talk page incorrectly. WV made a short list on 10/7, I gave a long detailed response the same day of how WV was incorrect on several of those issues, and on 10/11, WV gave a one-line unindented WP:IDHT. I believe the lack of indentation is fooling you. I think you meant to say it would be of interest for WV to respond to my list: for example, actually explaining his reasons for standing by the misreading of a source I pinpointed.
• As for the slipshod status the article is in, refs and all. Well, no kidding. I was in the middle of editing the article in bits and pieces, slowly assimilating all the WP:RS I'd found on Santmyer, when WV comes in and without bothering to even discuss things, elevates this to the noticeboard. That, to me, is blatant bad faith, especially after his previous "nyeah nyeah nyeah" on his talk page [62] that he plans to continue to Template my talk page, and lo and behold, this edit-war he set up happens one week later. With Ed's mandate and WV's WP:IDHT, it seemed obvious there was nothing doable.
• As I said in my 10/7 response, I agree there is a lot of work needed. As an experiment, I am willing to go ahead and start editing the article again with the understanding that Ed's mandate is suspended. My first edit will be to remove the refs-needed tag at the top (but not the section cites-needed tag). My second edit will be a cite to a source—one of the "Hollywood people", actually—saying "[the OSUP edition] sold approximately 200 copies and probably would have experienced a short, obscure literary life if not for an extraordinary, fortuitous series of events." (emphasis mine) The next round of edits will mostly be to implement the changes supported by my 10/7 list and to which WV never actually replied. If for one week things look good with interested parties watching, excellent. If not, rollback the article and unsuspend the mandate.
• Note that my time is generally tight this semester, so I sometimes take a day or two to actually respond. Choor monster (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Result: OK, back to normal editing and there are no more restrictions on either of you. If a new edit war breaks out the usual rules apply. And, if either party makes a new 3RR report without evidence of trying any WP:Dispute resolution the results may not be good. EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Mcgyver2k reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: No action)

Page

Myles Munroe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Mcgyver2k (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 16:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC) to 16:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
   1. 16:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Biography */"
   2. 16:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Awards */"
   3. 16:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Awards */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 16:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC) to 17:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
   1. 16:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Awards */"
   2. 17:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Awards */"
   3. 17:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Awards */"
3. 18:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 18:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC) ""
5. 19:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC) ""
6. 19:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633267882 by Winkelvi (talk)"
7. 19:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Awards */"
8. 20:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Awards */"
9. 00:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Awards */"
10. Consecutive edits made from 00:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC) to 00:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    1. 00:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC) ""
    2. 00:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC) ""
11. 04:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Awards */ Fixed an alleged claim that was proven false"
12. 04:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Awards */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Myles Munroe. (TW)"
2. 21:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* November 2014 */ customize"
3. 21:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* November 2014 */ resp"
4. 22:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* November 2014 */ resp"
5. 22:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* November 2014 */ +"
6. 22:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* November 2014 */ cmt"
7. 22:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* November 2014 */ fix"
8. 00:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 20:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Good edits coming */ resp"
2. 20:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Good edits coming */ indent"
3. 20:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Con artist is dead */ rem defamatory comments per wp:blp as blp standards apply for up to two years after article subject's death"
4. 20:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* OBE (Order of the British Empire) citation missing */ resp to mcgyver2k"
5. 21:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* OBE (Order of the British Empire) citation missing */ resp"
6. 21:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Using honorary degrees as titles */ resp"
7. 22:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* OBE (Order of the British Empire) citation missing */ add sinebot sig"
8. 22:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* OBE (Order of the British Empire) citation missing */ resp to mcgyver"
9. 00:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Using honorary degrees as titles */ resp"
10. 00:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC) "/* OBE (Order of the British Empire) citation missing */ resp to mcgyver"

Comments:

Issue over this content is still in discussion at the resolution noticeboard, but Mcgyver2k refuses to stop edit warring over this content. Yes, I have also reverted him several times, but only in the interest of keeping the article as it is with the referenced content. I have attempted several times to explain that a reliable source gives credence to keeping the OBE title in the article, Mcgyver2k refuses to listen. He insists on edit warring. I was more than willing to go through the resolution process he started, but have met with hostility and a brick wall with him there, as well. The edit warring over this needs to stop - but, more importantly, I think that the editor needs to understand that referenced content meets the threshold of inclusion. A separate matter, but playing heavily into his actions is a misunderstanding of verifiability policy. Not looking for punishment, just a stop to the disruption and combative nature of Mcgyver's editing at this article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I used her own source to discredit her so she is all upset now. My source is the most definitive one available. I poste a list of ALL recipients for the year in question and Myles Munroe is not one of them. Should be case closed.voiceofreason 05:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgyver2k (talk • contribs)

• Note. Seems like both of you have been edit warring for the last couple of days.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Not really. The article was just semi-protected. It's been quite active with vandalism and IP edits because of the death yesterday of the article subject, his wife, and daughter in a plane crash. Mcgyver2k went to dispute resolution, I participated, he refused to wait for the process to work, started reverting again even though we were still in the midst of discusssion there. Myself and another editor tried to discuss with him at the article talk page, the edit warring from Mcgyver2k continued. My most recent reverts of Mcgyver's removal of content were because discussion was still in process and change in content/consensus/agreement had not yet happened. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Result: No action. According to the report at WP:DRN, both parties have agreed to leave the OBE out of the article until discussions are concluded. This agreement was said to have happened about 22:00 on 11 November and I see no reverts since then, so it appears to be holding. I'll remind User:Mcgyver2k that believing you are correct is not a defence to WP:3RR. Also there is a problem with Mcgyver2k's signature that I'll explain on that editor's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

User:RGloucester reported by User:PBS (Result: Resolved)

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: Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RGloucester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is not a 3RR report but a request to stop an editor edit-warring on a talk page in the Wikipedia name space.

Version before reverts: [63]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• diff, Initial talk page edit by user:PBS Revision as of 12:43, 11 November 2014 -- edit comment: "Problems with the consensus and problems with the wording"
• diff, Revert by user:RGloucester, Revision as of 14:01, 11 November -- "Go away, and restate your opinion for the millionth time elsewhere."

Interlude on User talk:RGloucester (diff)

== You should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission ==

"The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." (WP:TPOC).

You do not have permission to delete my comments as you did here. I am going to revert your delete. If you revert my revert then I will take it to AN/I. -- PBS (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll follow the more subtle approach of ignoring everything you write, going forward, and collapsing all remarks by you that are disruptive. Thank you for your time. I hope you remember that you're not allowed on this page. You ought not breech that restriction, lest you face God's wrath. RGloucester — ☎ 19:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• diff, revert by PBS, 19:47, 11 November 2014 -- "You should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission"
• diff, collapse template used by RGloucester 19:48, 11 November 2014 -- collapse disruptive forum-shopping

Given the last sentence of RGloucester's talk page comment "I hope you remember that you're not allowed on this page. You ought not breech that restriction, lest you face God's wrath." I decided to bring the issue here rather than comment again on RGloucester's talk page.

The use of template {{collapse top}} in this situation is a breach of the lead in WP:Refactoring, the advise in the documentation of {{collapse top}} and WP:TALK:

• "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted."
• "These templates should only be used in accordance with the Wikipedia:Refactoring guideline; they should never be used to end a discussion over the objections of other editors, except in cases of unambiguous disruptive editing."
• [alledged] "Off-topic posts: If a discussion goes off-topic ... editors may hide it using the templates {{collapse top}}... —these templates should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors."

Comments:
I (PBS) object to the refactoring of my comments with the use of the template {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} by an RGloucester who is an involved editor.

Desired outcome by PBS

I do not want this to escalate into more of an edit war (so I brought it here) rather than revert RGloucester collapse, and I do not want any administrative action taken against RGloucester, instead could someone get RGloucester to either revert the collapse or allow me to without any further edit warring. -- PBS (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not actually involved in this, but surely there is a threshold beyond which one as gone too far? Regardless of the outcome here, such a comment as that by RGloucester may be deemed as threatening (in some manner, depending on interpretation and other things which I will not go into at the moment), and even if he was completely non-serious, still should not be reasonably allowable. (Non-administrator comment) Dustin (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Ha! Monsieur le PBS seems to have been quite cursory in his examination of the situation, given that I decided to remove the collapsing half-an-hour before he filed this report. I decided that I would let his absurdity stand, for all to see, much like a tired old man whinging whilst bound in the village stocks. He may have briefly broken out of said stocks to ramble over to this forum, but he is whinging all the same. RGloucester — ☎ 21:19, 11 November 2014 (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:98.234.107.204 reported by User:Aura24 (Result: Declined)

Page: Spyro (series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.234.107.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [64]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [65] Repeatedly adds in false detail about cancelled Legend of Spyro movie being "confirmed", that wasn't mentioned anywhere in the source provided.
2. [66]
3. [67]
4. [68]

Comments Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69]

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

Comments:

Since March 2014, User:98.234.107.204 has also been adding the same false information on the cancelled The Legend of Spyro 3D movie many many times for months on movie release date articles without providing any official sources whatsoever that shows evidence of the Legend of Spyro movie being made (it was confirmed to have been cancelled back in 2009). He just recently started adding the false info again on the Spyro (series) article, and shows no signs of stopping. -- Aura24 (talk) 06:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Declined. The IP has been warned of the unsourced change only twice (both times this month). Not even enough warnings to justify a block for vandalism. The edits have been few and far between for the most part. You or someone else reverts them each time. You've never warned the IP for edit warring, although given the nature of the "war", that's understandable. You didn't even notify the IP of this report. I see no reason to take action on this board.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Prisonermonkeys reported by User:Thegreyanomaly (Result: Both warned)

Page: Assassin's Creed Rogue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Prisonermonkeys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [71] (In short, the user keeps deleting the "Ties with Unity" section)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Diff of 06:39, 11 November 2014
2. Diff of 19:58, 11 November 2014
3. Diff of 22:37, 11 November 2014
4. Diff of 06:18, 12 November 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [72]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [73]

Comments:
This user has started an edit war on this page. They keep removing this section on the technicality that the whole game synopsis has not been written yet. When this game was released it was strongly noted by Ubisoft that the game would have a clear tie to Assassin's Creed Unity, which came out on the same day. That information needs to be on the page. This user keeps removing that section for no policy-based reasons. If you think a section is incomplete, you either fix the problem or put an incomplete notice on it, not remove it. Actions need to be taken against this user. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Also to be clear, the only reason that I did not revert the third or fourth revert (which is still active) is because I would rather not accumulate three reverts in 24 hours myself. I am waiting for someone else to fix the problem or for my reverts in 24 hours to drop to 1. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

As I have repeatedly outlined on the talk page, the information does not need to be on the page. It is "information" that is presented without any kind of context whatsoever, which is what my issue with it was. There may not be a specific Wikipedia policy that applies here, but when did we need a policy for common sense? Given that Thegreyanomaly has admitted he waited for editing to continue, I consider his actions here to be an attack on myself, demanding admin action to try and silence an editor who he does not agree with. He has made no effort to resolve the issue, instead accusing me of trying to introduce censorship into the article on the grounds that I don't want the article to contain spoilers. At every step, he has been aggressive and under-handed, trying to force edits through with no discussion or attempt at resolving the problem. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Regardless whether your edit is justified or not, you cannot unilaterally revert a page four times in 24 hours. I am not the only user to revert you. I have made efforts to resolve the issue, you didn't show up at the talk page until right before your third revert. Reporting a user for edit-warring is not attacking. If the section lacks context, you note that the section is incomplete or complete it, but you do not remove it. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You haven't made any efforts. You showed up, posted what amounted to "NOPE" and ignored WP:AGF. You decided what you wanted the article to say before you considered the arguments. Then you arbitrarily ruled on the best direction for the article to take, despite the way you're involved in a content dispute. The fact is, you're using 3RR and SPOLIERS to try and shut editors who disagree with you up. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I did not make any rulings. I just noted you have no policy to back you up. "Editors" is a little much, as you are the only one deleting the section. My 24 hours since my first revert is up. I have re-added the section and partly expanded it Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, I showed up to the talk page rightfully saying nope, because before you changed your story, your edit summary was "The game hasn't been released yet, so this is completely unverifiable," which complete nonsense as people had the game and live footage. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Give me one good reason why I should heed any of that when you have taken up edit-warring yourself? You might be outside the 24 hour window, but your most recent edits to the page, push your preferred version. That's edit-warring. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You told me the section was incomplete, I contributed towards completing it and cited a reliable IGN source in my claims. Two reverts in 24 hours from a user without a history of edit-warring is not edit-warring. You are the only one who wants your version, it's more like I am pushing against your preferred version of which only you prefer. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Warned both Thegreyanomaly and Prisonermonkeys that any more reverts of any kind in this article may be met with blocks without notice. Prisonermonkeys clearly breached 3RR. Thegreyanomaly reverted three times in 24 hours, not two, as a third revert was without being logged in (admitted). Second, although the last revert was outside the 24-hour window, it was remarkably ill-advised to revert after filing this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Bbb23: You are miscounting Revision as of 21:45, 11 November 2014 = 1 (me logged out) Revision as of 21:26, 12 November 2014 = 2. Two in 24 hours. The "zeroth" revert was before 21:26, 11 November 2014, it was 18:14. You are miscounting, and I had made it clear in the report that I would revert when my count fell. Also, you are letting a user with a clear cut history of edit-warring go unscathed. That is highly problematic. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

User:GeorgeLees1975 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Indeffed)

Page

Akrotiri and Dhekelia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

GeorgeLees1975 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633548015 by Thomas.W (talk) Undoing repeated revision made without talk or explaination"
2. 17:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633546448 by Dr.K. (talk) Revision made by Dr.K has made while refusing to talk. Please comment on the talk page before deleting sections of useful sources thanks"
3. 17:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633544409 by Thomas.W (talk) Dr K and Watts seem to be the same person and do not explain their removal of useful information except to claim I am someone I am not."
4. 16:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633543522 by Dr.K. (talk)"
5. 16:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631928400 by Dr.K. (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Akrotiri and Dhekelia. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• Discussion on talk

Comments:

Brand new account, probable sock. Very first edit of account to undo my reversal of the OR edit by CU blocked sock Gasmonitor. He is rapid-fire edit-waring, reinstating an edit by Gasmonitor: diff while adding the SYNTH map of indeffed Alexyflemming which has been rejected on the talkpage. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: The sock is edit-warring even as this report is active. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not a "sock" I think the information you have removed is relevant, interesting and well sourced and discussed (one sided as nobody resopnded to me before repeatedly reverting my edits but still). I can not help thinking there is a modicum of bias in this removal of information Kind regars (George Lees) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeLees1975 (talk • contribs)

• It is, pr WP:DUCK, a very clear case of socking: same edits as indefinitely blocked Alexyflemming, with same style edit summaries and on the same article, edit-warring to get the same OR image, a self-made map, into Akrotiri and Dhekelia. As for Gasmonitor I have no comment, since I'm not familiar with that editor, but I have no doubts about the connection between GeorgeLees1975 and Alexyflemming. Thomas.W ^talk 17:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Never heard of him - just because I think his references on the Cypriot sea are useful does not make me the same person! Can you discuss the actual issue - it seems to me to be well soursed from original texts George Lees

We did previously discuss the 'actual' issue at quite some length, and I've replied to you on the article's talk page as well. 83.168.23.138 (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment He's now moved on to throwing personal attacks. 83.168.23.138 (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• He just announced his purpose on Wikipedia. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely as a sock of Alexyflemming by HJ Mitchell. Thomas.W ^talk 19:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

User:Rocelese reported by User:Padresfan94 (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [74]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [75]
2. [76]
3. [77]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Abortion articles are under community sanctions and cannot be reverted more than 1 time in a day. Roscelese has been warned and blocked about this many times. Padresfan94 (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments:
Abortion articles are under community sanctions and cannot be reverted more than 1 time in a day. Roscelese made 3 reverts on the Care Net page in 1 afternoon. Roscelese has been warned and blocked about this many times. Padresfan94 (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm busy trying to improve the article by discussing the issue on the talk page with the user I was initially in disagreement with, and the second edit here is the result of our discussion and compromise. Padresfan is a SPA stalking me (check out that lack of participation in the discussion) and I expect this report to be the WP:BOOMERANG this user deserves. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

So you don't deny that you made 3 reverts on an article under community sanctions? Padresfan94 (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• A couple of thoughts: first of all, while this article arguably falls under the abortion general sanctions, the article did not bear a talk-page notice nor an edit notice notifying editors of those restrictions (I've since added them). I'm loathe to block someone without warning on a page which displayed no visible indication that it was subject to 1RR, and would be inclined to instead warn Roscelese and insist she adhere to the 1RR on the article now that notice has been given.

  Separately, we generally make allowances for reverting sockpuppets of blocked or banned editors and other inappropriate alternate accounts. Padresfan94 (talk · contribs) is an obvious sockpuppet, and a combative agenda-driven single-purpose account on top of that (e.g. [78]). As such, I'm inclined to block the account indefinitely, but first would like additional administrator input. MastCell ^Talk 22:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)