Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 19:33, 15 November 2014

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Shortcuts

Update this page

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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355
356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365
Incidents (archives, search)
1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157
1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
468	469	470	471	472	473	474	475	476	477
478	479	480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330
331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Prisonermonkeys reported by User:Thegreyanomaly (Result: Both warned; Prisonermonkeys subsequently blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [1] (In short, the user keeps deleting the "Ties with Unity" section)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [2]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [3]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).~~ Although their third revert was outside the 24-hour window, it was ill-advised to revert after filing this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Thegreyanomaly, you are correct; I miscounted. You reverted twice in a 24-hour window. I've struck the language in my warning above and reworded the last sentence. My warning still stands, despite the difference in the number of reverts. Your announcement here doesn't let you off the hook. That said, if another administrator wants to take a different action, I have no objection. I will also give the matter some more thought.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked Prisonermonkeys for one week for reverting despite my warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [4]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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. [8]). 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)[reply]

This does not seem appropriate. If Padersfan94 is a SPA or suspected sock puppet (and looking over his/her edits, I'm not actually convinced that's the case) but if that is actually the concern, then the issue should be brought to the appropriate board. It doesn't justify edit warring or violating community sanction. Also, I recall Roscelese was very recently brought to this board by another user: Juno [9] regarding violation of the 1RR on abortion related articles, for an article I was editing, and I purposely did not comment because although there was a 1RR violation, the issue was resolved and I don't believe blocks should be punitive. It was closed with reminders of the 1RR restriction on abortion related articles to all participants. A violation of 1RR shortly after reminder seems to warrant some type of action--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 3 reverts that Roscelese fired off that afternoon, only 1 on them was directed at material that I wrote. Even of you want to entertain that "I had to break 1RR because this guy who already passed a chekuser is totally a sockpuppet" nonsense, that still wouldn't explain the other 2 reverts. Padresfan94 (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You "already passed a checkuser", Padresfan94? What do you mean? Please name the checkuser who checked you. Bishonen | talk 23:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Roscelese already filed a sockpuppet investigation against me when I was editing as an ip. Give me a moment to go find it. Padresfan94 (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This I can now see that it was actually Contaldo80 that filed the report. As he and Rosclese edit the same articles at the same time from the same POV you will understand if I occasionally get them confused. Padresfan94 (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The comment that you linked to was a direct response to this, and no, I'm not a sock.

Per the idea the Roscelese didn't know because the talk page didn't bear a notice: the talk page has a header for Wikipeoject:Abortion, the word Abortion is mentioned twice in the 3 sentence lead and the contested material involved abortion. Do you honestly not think that she knew the article pertained to abortion? Padresfan94 (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Assuming you were one of the two IPs named in the report, there was no CU done, so your contention that you have been checked by a CU is not true.~~--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry then, I though that that had happened. In any case, I'm still not a sockpuppet and Roscelese still violated 1RR twice in one afternoon after being warned repeatedly against doing so. Padresfan94 (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've dug some more and have struck my comment. I can't disclose the details, but, again, assuming you were one of the IPs in the report, it is highly unlikely there was a technical connection between the IPs and User:Esoglou. As a consequence, Esoglou, who had been blocked for a week, was unblocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't really buy the "wasn't notified about 1RR" argument. However, I am very much swayed by the "God, dealing with socks who each revert you once with no consequences can get fucking old after a while" argument. I don't know this subject area well, so I don't know the particulars of the various sock masters, and I don't have any time to do research to get some kind of indisputable proof, so I won't stick my neck out to far and block them now. But I recommend that whatever admin decides to close this consider reminding/warning Roscelese about this, rather than blocking. Anyone mind if I issue Padresfan94 and the other editor (can't recall the name, they have all of like 5 edits) a warning, along the lines of "do not revert Roscelese again", under the General Sanctions? --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I object to this. If there is evidence to bring a sockpuppet investigation against anyone (and I've yet to see anything to convince me there is, but I haven't followed it closely enough to say for sure) then that investigation should be brought to the proper board. Absent that, giving anyone a warning to "not revert Roscelese again" seems inappropriate considering this user appears to have a history of edit warring on the topic area of abortion. I see no reason that Roscelese should be given free reign to revert (especially in violation of community sanctions) while others are warned they cannot revert her.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a sockpuppet. But even if you didn't like that the " "God, dealing with socks who each revert you once with no consequences can get fucking old after a while" argument" would only explain 1 of the 2 differednt 1RR violations that Roscelese made on the same page in 4 hours. After being warned repeatedly and having had been previously blocked for the same issue. Padresfan94 (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is like the hundredth complaint about Roscelese related to edit wars on pages connected to women's rights. Many of those complaints involved retaliatory allegations by Roscelese or those who share her POV, that the other editor was "stalking" her, "harassing" her, "hounding" her, etc. She's also had several warnings about abusive use of accusation templates. I know because I'm currently a victim of related conduct -- I made a request for page protection and dispute resolution to stop an edit war, and the response was a torrent of personal attacks and then a ban request by people with whom she tag-team edits. She has a remarkable ability to respond to complaints about her behavior by making distracting allegations against her accuser -- here, that s/he's a sockpuppet. She's been involved in at least 4 different edit wars with multiple people over women's rights articles in just the last week. As I understand it (I am not a master of the admin tools), there have been several blocks, and quite a few block violations in the past. I respectfully request that a warning be given as to the entire subject matter of gender issues, and as to abusive use of personal allegations against other editors. Since this has come up so often, I also respectfully request that it be the final warning before a subject-matter ban is contemplated. Djcheburashka (talk) 06:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone mentioned me here so I'll chime in: Roscelese is a valuable editor but this a problem area for her and she stepped over the line, again. There can be no claims of ignorance: if you look at her talk page 3 different editors (myself included) warned her for violating or nearly violating 1RR on 3 different abortion pages since mid-October alone. This is her second time here for violating abortion 1RR in a month, and her block log shows that this has been a long-running problem. She was left off with a stern warning earlier this month, it didn't do any good.

She clearly violated 1RR, twice on the same page in one day. (something she admits to) She clearly knew it was wrong. She is not sorry. This is far from the first time. Juno (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since this has somehow not been closed yet, I'll point out, again, that the second "revert" here is an edit that the user I was in disagreement with asked me to make and endorsed on the talk page after I'd made it - is anyone really suggesting that it's a good idea to let 3RR be gamed in this way? "Ha ha, you made the edit I suggested you make, now you're an edit warrior!" - and that the third is an obvious sockpuppet and single-purpose account who exists to follow me around and edit war. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about the other two RR's on a 1RR limit that she's violated on similar pages three times already in the past? What about the other simultaneous edit wars? And what about the groundless accusation that her accuser is a sockpuppet who's been "stalking" and "harassing" her? If someone with a view opposed to hers had made this number of reversions, Roscelese would be shrieking for his head --- she's done so consistently on far, far weaker grounds. With the number of violations here, over this long a period of time, not taking action would send the message that a different set of rules apply to her than to everyone else. Djcheburashka (talk) 01:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:50.51.38.150 reported by User:Tutelary (Result: 31 hours)

Page: Video game journalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.51.38.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

01:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC) ""Well established fact?" He was listed in the special thanks of Depression Quest! Contact was made, but the nature of the contact is in question (no claim can be made regarding it, positive or negative)."
01:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Clarification is our friend."
00:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "No, I've seen you "discuss." You're more interested with pushing bull**** then using whatever wiki law you can to excuse yourself than you are with making a good article. Really, who added the Salon citation?"
00:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC) ""Nobody ever argued" Then why even note it?"
00:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Holy crap, the mental gymnastics are just amazing. Thezoepost did not claim that a review happened. YOU need to cite the claim. Do you not know how the burden of proof works?"
00:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC) ""Eron never made the claim" is too hard for you? Really, now you're just avoiding discussion. Is Salon even an acceptable source?"
00:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633597093 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) The claim itself is unsourced. thezoepost doesn't make that claim."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

01:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Over 3RR */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Obviously over 3RR. Tutelary (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Love how I'm getting flak for this but the one that first did the 3RR-ing was North. 50.51.38.150 (talk) 01:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An addendum to my original report. North and the IP appear to be reverting several more times now. The IP is giving policy names I'm not sure he knows and citing North's edits as 'vandalism'. (Hint hint, they're not, but they are over 3RR.) Tutelary (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 31 hours for disruptive editing. NorthBySouthBaranof does not clean have clean hands and should have stopped, but blocking them would be punitive since there will be no more disruption. NorthBySouth, you have acted foolishly; don't do it again.
Just to make the case clear: the IP's edits are atrocious. Tutelary, your diligence is greatly appreciated; I hope you are pleased that the disruption is now over. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:Tutelary (Result: Warned)

Page: Video game journalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

01:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "As per the reliable sources which have reported on this matter. Take it to the talk page."
01:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Conflicts of interest and pressure from game publishers */ This is well-established and discussed in reliable sources."
00:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 50.51.38.150 (talk) to last version by NorthBySouthBaranof"
00:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Please discuss your issues on the talk page and stop writing an ungrammatical and nonsensical sentence."
00:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Nobody ever argued that Gjoni wrote about Quinn or Depression Quest, so why are you writing a sentence which states that?"
00:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "It doesn't make sense to say "Gjoni didn't review Depression Quest" because nobody's claimed that. If it needs to be clear that those accusations were by others, then write that."
00:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Unsourced and the sentence doesn't make sense. Discuss your proposal on the talk page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

01:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Over 3RR */ new section"
01:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Over 3RR */ sign"
01:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Over 3RR */ c"
01:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Over 3RR */ r"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is over 3RR on the article with what appears to be a good faithed IP. As a result, I am reporting them both. North has not claimed an exemption within edit summaries and neither has the IP. In the event that either of them do, I'll let an uninvolved admin review such claims. But both editors are edit warring over the page. Tutelary (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is patently a bad-faith report by an ideological opponent. The IP has refused to engage in talk-page discussion despite multiple attempts and is inserting (a) completely ungrammatical, nonsensical sentences and (b) unsupported insinuations of unethical behavior by a living person that contradict the conclusions of all of the reliable sources. I claim both the vandalism and BLP exemptions in this case and I request that Tutelary be sanctioned for this bad-faith report, one of a continuing series of such unfounded reports made against their ideological opponents. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An addendum to my original complaint. North and the IP appear to be reverting several more times now. North is rollbacking said edits without an edit summary. Tutelary (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've merely reported two edit warriors and would merely like said edit warring to stop. Tutelary (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, right, sure Tutelary. You're just an innocent bystander who's never said anything about Gamergate and just magically happened to drag me to AN3. Come off it. The bad faith here is apparent. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the user in question has been blocked for disruptive editing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And you acted foolishly. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Drmies and I am content with this result for both the IP and North. Thanks again. Tutelary (talk) 01:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the opinion of Drmies, but can not help to note that the version of Northetc. is backed up by the given source] and the version of mr. IP. not. The Banner talk 01:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Banner, thanks Tutelary. I can't stress this enough: edit summaries are necessary, and in cases like these, when a 3RR exemption is claimed, that needs to be explicit. Even that doesn't mean exemptions are always granted, and I hope that NorthBySouthBaranof will be more careful next time. At the same time, I am well aware that editors of good faith who wish to stick to the rules have a harder time than others who don't (in this case an IP editor). Drmies (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Seanwal111111 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: )

Editor notified:[10]

Previous version reverted to: [11]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17][18][19][20]

Comments:
Seanwal has been reverted by 3 different editors. His response to being reverted is, "Undid revision. You have to explain and justify your edit with respect to the MOS:BIO guidelines."

On November 5, I posted the following on Favonian's talk page:[21]

"I need some advice as to how to proceed. On the Al-Karaji article, user:Seanwal111111 has been removing Persian from the lead. He has been reverted by user:HistoryofIran and myself. I initiated the discussion on the talk page, in which Seanwal's reasoning is his interpretation of MOS guideline, "Ethnicity... should not generally be emphasized in the opening [paragraph] unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.".

My response was that if sources state the subject's ethnicity then we are required to mention it. Seanwal responded by stating, "I note that you haven't any concrete historical fact to offer bearing on his ethnicity; rather, you just assert a label.".[22]

I responded by posting numerous sources on Oct 15th.[23] After waiting until Oct 26th and receiving no response from Seanwal, I restored the reference and referenced information.[24]

Nine days later(Nov 5th) and without even making an effort on the talk page, Seanwal came back to remove the reference and referenced information, making the same blanket statement, "I invite Kansas Bear to try to explain why his edit should get an exception from the MOS:BIO guidelines.[25] It appears Seanwal does not have to participate on the talk page(he has not used it since Oct 14th[26]) and continues to use his interpretation of MOS guidelines to edit war."

As of today, November 12th, Seanwal has not posted on the talk page since October 14th, yet has reverted the article 4 times. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by Seanwal111111. The insertion I am repeatedly deleting is in clear violation of the guidelines for the opening paragraph of a biography given at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies. I explained this at Talk:Al-Karaji a month ago. Since then two Persian flagwavers have repeatedly re-inserted Persian ethnicity in the opening paragraph at Al-Karaji. They have been doing this without justifying it on the talk page with respect to the Manual of Style guidelines for the opening paragraph of a biography, and, in fact, without even attempting to justify it. Seanwal111111 (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by Kansas Bear. I would strongly suggest that Seanwal not issue personal attacks such as, "two Persian flagwavers. I am neither a Persian or a flagwaver.

If his opinion of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies is correct then I am sure there are proper venues to support it, however his opinion of a Wikipedia policy does not give him license to edit war as he has done. I am curious as to why this policy has not been applied to Frédéric Chopin, Ludwig van Beethoven, Galileo Galilei, Johann Sebastian Bach, just to name a few.

Also there are three editors that he has reverted(Kansas Bear, HistoryofIran, 46.143.214.22). Unless Seanwal is implying sockpuppetry.

Lastly, there has been an explanation on the talk page,

"Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability."

"Notability is dependent on source(s). Therefore, if a reliable source mentions al-Karaji's ethnicity we are required to mention it." Since Seanwal did not like this response, he quit the talk page(Oct 14th) then returned to edit war(Nov 5th). --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Seanwal111111 is plainly correct about Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies. The WP requires nationality, which is the reason for the content on the pages cited by Kansas Bear, but it discourages ethnicity unless the ethnicity is notable. The Al-Karaji page does indicate his nationality. I don't know whether Al-Karaji's ethnicity is relevant to his notability (haven't a clue who he is), but if it is relevant the page at the moment does not explain why. I'm not saying anything about whether the edit war was proper, but he's definitely right about the WP. Djcheburashka (talk) 08:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The WP requires nationality, which is the reason for the content on the pages cited by Kansas Bear.."

Not to take this further off topic but;

"Chopin was born in what was then the Duchy of Warsaw, and grew up in Warsaw...", therefore Polish is being used as an ethnicity not nationality.

"Ludwig von Beethoven, Born in Bonn, then the capital of the Electorate of Cologne and part of the Holy Roman Empire.....", therefore German is being used as an ethnicity not a nationality.

"Galileo Galilei, Galileo was born in Pisa (then part of the Duchy of Florence)....", Italian is being used as an ethnicity.

"Johann Sebastian Bach, Bach was born in Eisenach, Saxe-Eisenach, into a great musical family." same as Beethoven.

I believe this had made my point. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the opposite, and this isn't really off-topic- -- you've thoroughly confirmed that you don't understand the policy:

Chopin has an entire section discussing the notability of his Polish nationality.

Bach was born in present-day Germany, and the article extensively discusses his role in the development of the "German style" of music.

As for Galileo and Beethoven, we don't generally distinguish nationalities between different states of the Holy Roman Empire. Instead we generally treat people born in the parts that became Italy as Italian, and the parts that became Germany as German. If they were using ethnicity, the Beethoven lede would list him as a "Belgian" composer.

What's becoming increasingly clear here, is that this was an incident in which three editors who insisted on a completely mistaken understanding of a rather simple rule, ganged-up on a fourth who actually understood it. Looking at the talk, he expressed his view in clear and concise terms. He was met with attacks, anger, nastiness, threats, accusations of bias, and an obvious abject refusal to engage in reasonable discussion.

The simple solution here would have been to take "Persian" out of the lede, and have a separate section of the article discuss the sources and notability (if any) of his Persian heritage. In fact, the poster proposed that, but the three opponents refused to entertain it. Why?

I'm not defending the 3RR -- but the context is one of an outside editor trying to do the correct thing (improperly), first raising the matter in talk in a reasonable way and seeking compromise and discussion, when three other editors abusively and unreasonably refused to include him/her in the discussion and instead insisted on a mistaken position that coincidentally coincides with the known POVs of at least two of them. Djcheburashka (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gurjeshwar reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

09:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633315588 by Sitush (talk) Dear Sir,, Sardar Patel was gurjar, as already mentioned in Wikipedia Page of Mr. Vallabh Bhai Patel. Don't remove his picture. No copyright violation."
10:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633503102 by Sitush (talk) Debate ::what you need? I already talked on talk page November 2014e. NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)"[reply]
03:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633505306 by Sitush (talk)YOu have changed whole gurjar history content and their Icon like Samrat Mihir Bhoja & Sardar Patel images. We oppose your act. Being admin you can not do this."
03:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633616998 by NeilN (talk) We means Wikipedia writer, Please do not remove images with references. Thanks"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

03:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Gurjar */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

3RR warning and discretionary sanctions notice given by Sitush earlier. Discussion on talk page NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC) [reply]

COMMENT, usual tag-teaming by non-Indian editors against a single Indian editor to insert dubious material. @NeilN, why did you reinsert that notorious Kurbanov myth / concoction originally from Ardir Banerji '62 ? If you see pg 58 of the source it clearly says the evidences of the Huna survival in Mewar are fourfold traditional, literary, epigraphic and numismatic. Balderdash and original research. This edit war needs an expert 3rd opinion between the 2 POV warriors. MonaPisser (talk) 14:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to discuss article content, do it on the article's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:::Sorry, but I'm here to discuss Edit Warring, not content. The content was to illustrate competence, or the lack thereof of intervenors. The edit history shows 2 disputants for the reverted article content, who have already discussed it on article talk and got nowhere, essentially because they are talking past each other, with atrocious edit summaries. This is a classic 3rd Opinion situation if either of them requests it, and "we" should encourage it. The article itself is sufficiently important in the Indian context for me to volunteer to assist them, if AGF prevails. The article talk was perfunctory ending with one editor saying So please do not undo till the answer from your side to counter my facts provided you. Seems to be a case of IDHT MonaPisser (talk) 15:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly wouldn't accept you as a neutral WP:3O and I'm pretty sure Sitush wouldn't either. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would want disclosure of any prior accounts, for sure. - Sitush (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to discuss Ghurye instead ? as I've already revealed my real world identity and other Wiki accounts (unlike you). MonaPisser (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – Gurjeshwar blocked 48 hours for 3RR violation, based on the four reverts listed above, which begin at 09:23 on 12 November. EdJohnston (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:71.7.239.21 reported by User:NeilN (Result: 31 hours)

Page: Wendy Davis (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.7.239.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

03:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Campaign for Governor of Texas */ added Washington Post eval, non copyrighted text."
03:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633619831 by NeilN (talk)"
03:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633620185 by NewEnglandYankee (talk) NeilN deleted NEW material, not otherwise repeated material as he claimed. He never read it."
04:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633621173 by NeilN (talk)How can you get a consensus when you keep deleting it from the talk page NeilN?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

03:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Wendy Davis (politician). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

04:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Wendy Davis Lost */"

Comments:

Edit-warring to add poorly written material to a BLP NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Blocked 31 hours--poorly written and a BLP violation too, as far as I'm concerned. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:SargentSignals reported by User:NG39 (Result: Page in question deleted, user warned)

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

14:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "Fuck off..."
Consecutive edits made from 13:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC) to 13:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
1. 13:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "Fucktards keeps trying to delete.."
2. 13:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC) ""
01:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "Fucktard keeps deleting..."
01:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "SargentSignals Super Soccer Schedule..."
01:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "SargentSignals Super Soccer Schedule..."
00:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "SargentSignals Super Soccer Schedule..."
23:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC) "SargentSignals Super Soccer Schedule..."
Consecutive edits made from 17:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC) to 18:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
1. 17:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC) "SargentSignals Super Soccer Schedule..."
2. 18:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC) "SargentSignals Super Soccer Schedule..."
3. 18:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC) "SargentSignals Super Soccer Schedule..."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

08:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on User:SargentSignals. (Twinkle)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

08:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on User:SargentSignals. (Twinkle)"

Comments:

User Keeps removing MfD template from his userspace. Uses "fucktard"in his edit summaries. NG39 (Used to be NickGibson3900)^Talk 04:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage deleted: Wikipedia isn't a webhost. Will address behavioral issues with the user. Acroterion (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have the user page on my watchlist now and if the editor returns and restores or adds similar material, where should I report the activities? Please instruct on my talk page as I am not watching here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:RGloucester reported by User:LlywelynII (Result: No blocks)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

"Contributions" beginning 03:54, 13 November 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Here.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Wikipedia talk:Argentine, not Argentinian

Comments:
Eh, this one is messier than usual because the 3rr violation wasn't editing of a single page but repeated movement and blanking of content. The original content at Wikipedia:Argentine, not Argentinian was an essay by RGloucester that (mho) ignored the relevant policy (common English practice) to focus on Spanish usage and POVy complaints about "proper" usage based on a (mistaken) history of the words' usage. I corrected the mistakes, removed the POV commentary, and included some additional and better sources. Those were almost instantly reverted.

Not really wanting to fight such a clingy page owner, I just moved the page to his user space where personal essays of one person's support belong. He couldn't move the page back and led it on a bizarre path around Wikipedia before sending it to my user space. That was fine and I just left it for speedy deletion.

The original namespace now being vacant, I restored the improved essay, which RGloucester has repeatedly moved or deleted without discussion, occasionally making specious edit commentaries that I am in copyright violation of myself, having pasted back the material from my original edit. He seems like a common appearance here and would appreciate the guy having the procedure explained to him again by people he will listen to.

Resolution of the placement of the original POVy content or my improvement of it would be nice as a sideline (He seems to accept leaving his in his user's section here but I'm not sure how genuine that is given his conduct today or as evidenced by his talk page and sarcastic reply there), but this might be the wrong forum for that. — LlywelynII 04:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, ha, ha! As I said, I'm fine with leaving my version of the essay in the user space, if his version stays in the user space. His is a skewing of the sources, and quite frankly, a total commentary. If mine is somehow no good for the Wikipedia space, then certainly neither is his. Yes, he committed a copyright violation by doing a cut-and-paste move. Nothing about the essay I wrote "ignored" policy, it just explained what the Spanish usage was, and what the etymology of the damn thing is. Never mind that, though. This is a total kibosh. RGloucester — ☎ 04:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously the wrong forum for this, but you can explain your concerns about my "skewing" and "commentary" on article's talk page. I can't see it at all, but perhaps I missed something. In any case, use of my own words is not a copyright violation as bad as cut-and-paste moves are for other reasons. — LlywelynII 04:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a copyright violation because there is no attribution. By the way, as far as my behaviour is concerned, I do believe I left a comment on the essay's talk page in reply. Instead of granting a reply, Mr Llywelyn, presumably of fair Wales, started moving the page and messing with redirects. None of this would've started if he had simply talked it out first. However, was I meant to sit idly by whilst the essay I wrote was usurped because of apparent "PoV" problems, and then see him put his own heavily skewed version in? How on earth could I do that? It was an attack on my character, and so I defended myself. It was not an elegant affair, and I can't say I'm proud of myself for it. However, sometimes, one must do what one must. I believe the stout leek is quite aware of this, given his usual countenance to serve in winter's grasp. RGloucester — ☎ 04:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, for anyone looking for the original essay and its edit history, it now resides here. RGloucester — ☎ 05:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the page back to the original location, where it has been for the last 2 years, and opened a move request. That's what should had been done from the begining, a move request. Explain the reasons for moving or keeping it there, and if you want to move then where to move. Cambalachero (talk) 13:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Left a note for User:Jimfbleak who is an admin since he had redirected the article to Name of Argentina. Unless he responds here with an objection, I think this 3RR should be closed with a recommendation to let the move discussion run its course at Wikipedia talk:Argentine, not Argentinian#Requested move. Nobody should do any further moves or redirections until consensus is reached. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I don't think that redirect could be acceptable anyway, as it would be a redirect from the wikipedia namespace to the article namespace. Cambalachero (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me, I didn't realise what I had inadvertently wandered into Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: No blocks. Everyone should wait for the outcome of the move discussion at Wikipedia talk:Argentine, not Argentinian#Requested move. If you have some other opinion (such as delete the essay) why not express that in the move discussion and let the closing admin figure it out. EdJohnston (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

121.73.130.151 reported by VictoriaGrayson (Result: Anon blocked)

Page: Padmasambhava (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 121.73.130.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Warning diff

Comments:

This IP address is edit warring with Drmies and me.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 06:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 6 months via Anon-block Dreadstar ☥ 06:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Dreadstar. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Meat/sockpuppet IP

Please take a look at the Padmasambhava page @Drmies, Dreadstar, and Joshua Jonathan:.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I semi-protected the article. Dreadstar ☥ 21:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:UniGuard (Result: Sock blocked, opponent warned.)

Page: List of awards and nominations received by Mohanlal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Consecutive edits made from 19:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC) to 19:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
1. 19:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Asianet Film Awards */ unsourced"
2. 19:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Asiavison Tv Awards (Dubai) */ unsourced"
3. 19:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* AsiaVision Amma Malayalam Movie Awards (Dubai) */ unsoruced"
4. 19:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* CNN-IBN */ unsoruced"
5. 19:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Kerala State Film Awards */ unsourced"
6. 19:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Indian Medical Association */ unsourced"
7. 19:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* National Film Awards */ unsourced"
8. 19:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* South Indian International Movie Awards */ unsourced"
9. 19:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Mathrubhumi Film Awards */ unsourced"
10. 19:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Kerala Film Critics Awards */ unsourced"
11. 19:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Jaihind TV Film Awards */ unsourced"
12. 19:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Kerala Film Audience Council Awards */ unsourced"
13. 19:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Filmfare Awards South */ unsourced"
14. 19:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Amrita TV Film Awards */ rem unsourced"
15. 19:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Other awards and recognitions */ unsourced / non reliably sourced"
16. 19:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Other awards and recognitions */ format"
17. 19:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Vanitha Film Awards */ unsourced"
18. 19:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Star Screen Awards */ unsourced"
19. 19:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Titles and Honours */ unsoruced"
20. 19:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* International Indian Film Academy Awards */ unsoruced"
21. 19:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "unneeded hatnote"
22. 19:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "poorly sourced and written"
23. 19:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "gramm"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Heavy vandalism, damaging wikipedia articles. UniGuard (talk) 10:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note this is not edit warning, bring it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents instead, these look like legitimate edits Avono (talk) 10:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this: UniGuard already blocked as a sock. But...eh...may I? TheRedPenOfDoom, you are playing with fire and you need to be much more careful. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kwm1975 reported by User:BranStark (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Wallace Fard Muhammad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kwm1975 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

14:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC) ""
14:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Same as last edit."
14:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Replaced intentionally false and misleading post that has been repeatedly re-posted."
13:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC) ""
Consecutive edits made from 13:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC) to 13:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

14:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Volunteer Marek reported by User:Kenfree (Result: No action)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[27]
[28]
[29]
[diff]

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

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

Also, this issue is under discussion on the NPOV noticeboard, where Marek's disruptive behavior has also been discussed

Comments: Volunteer Marek has shown himself an incorrigible edit warrior, who will not tolerate edits to the lede that fail to maintain the negative tone he desires. Dozens of examples could be adduced, but this is my first formal report. Marek has clearly reverted Sidelight 12's good faith edit three times in less than 24 hours, without reasonable cause. Please review the editorial history of this page and earlier examples of intolerance of editorial revision by those not sharing this user's POV will be evident. --> Kenfree (talk) 16:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are all edits by Kenfree in article space. During the entire year of 2014, he did only one thing: reverts in the article he now complains about. This is clearly a case of WP:Not here. My very best wishes (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This report by user:My very best wishes is false on both accounts (see my editing history) and irrelevant on all accounts, as is the fact that user:My very best wishes has not contributed anything constructive in the whole of my experience in this conflict.Kenfree (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by VM

There is no 3RR violation here. Yes, I reverted Kenfree. That is because this is an issue which has been discussed TO DEATH. On the article talk page [32], [33], [34], [35], on WP:NPOVN [36] and several other venues which I can't be bothered to look for right now. User:Kenfree, along with a tag-team buddy User:Spotter 1, who was recently blocked for a week for edit warring on this very article [37] has been engaged in a long running edit war against multiple users for close to two months. By "multiple users" I mean about half a dozen, including one administrator, User:Ymblanter. And of course, these two are just the latest in a long list of single purpose accounts, most of which have shown up on this article to push POV, get banned, and then come back with new usernames. Needless to say, this is edit warring by Kenfree against consensus, involving repeated attempts to remove well sourced information from the article. This consensus has been strongly established in the above mentioned discussions. Kenfree is simply engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and reverting away.

In addition to today, Kenfree tried to impose his views on the article via edit warring on November 1st [38] [39] (note that this is him edit warring with OTHER editors, not me), October 27th [40] (again not me), October 25th [41], [42], October 21st [43] [44], [45], [46] (that one was a 3RR violation which went unreported, AFAIK), October 17 [47], [48], October 13 [49], October 9 [50], [51], [52], [53], [54] (another unreported 3RR violation).

I should also add that constructive discussion with this user is impossible. They have repeatedly claimed that the five sources provided for the text under dispute don't support the text. In response, detailed explanations and direct quotes showing that they DO in fact support the text have been repeatedly provided. This was done on the talk page and at the noticeboard discussion linked above. In response Kenfree ignored these explanations, only to repeat their false claim again in some other venue. It's a classic case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The typical conversation goes something like this:

Kenfree: "The five sources provided don't support the text"

Other user: "Yes they do, please read them, here are the links"

Kenfree: "No they don't"

Other user: "Yes they do, here's a quote from all five sources which shows that they directly support the text"

Kenfree: "No they don't"

Other user: "What do you mean they don't? I just gave you exact quotes. Here's some more..."

Kenfree: "No they don't"

Other user: "? Can you explain how?"

Kenfree: "No they don't"

Other user: "I just explained that they do, how, and provided quotes"

Kenfree: "No you didn't"

Etc.

That's basically the level of discussion here. Volunteer Marek 17:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above referenced discourse is also both falsely reported (note that it is not referenced) and irrelevant to user:Volunteer Marek's violation, which was not, as he reports, initially a revert of me, but of Sidelight 12, whose constructive edit, reflecting the current discussion on the NPOV noticeboard, Marek personally opposes, but is manifestly incapable of rationally critiquing there or elsewhere. So he edit wars. Anyone with questions about my capacity for constructive discussion, as compared to Marek's, is referred to the NPOV noticeboard discussion on this topic, rather than his highly fabricated wall of text. Kenfree (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"(note that it is not referenced)" - come on, I give twenty two diffs as evidence. You do realize that people can read and see those for themselves, right? They're right above. See what I mean? Volunteer Marek 18:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Marek, it is because I know that people can read for themselves that I am confident that if they go to the Wikipedia record, rather than relying on your tendentious paraphrase of that record, they will soon enough discover that it is you, and not me, who continues to defend a list of largely irrelevant citations to a very serious allegation against the RT network, and that at each turn your claims about their relevance have been refuted by me and other editors. They will also discover that it is you, and not I, who have been reverting without explanation. My constructive and well developed contributions to the talk page and the current NPOV noticeboard discussion will certainly speak for themselves, and the glaring ABSENCE of yours will as well. Kenfree (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ymblanter There is a clear consensus at the talk page that the current version is appropriate. Kenfree refuses to accept this consensus and is therefore forum-shopping and edit-warring. I suggest that they get blocked for disruptive editing instead.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that anyone with administrator status should be required to show at least a semblance of neutrality, but this is never the case with Ymblanter, whose service as a sidekick for Volunteer Marek is unceasing, suggesting that there is either ideological consanguinity or some other kind of reward for his services involved. In any case, his statement above should be compared to the raging dispute among the editors on the NPOV noticeboard, to which Sidelight 12's edit represented a constructive attempt at compromise, making Marek's reversion all the more damaging. But Ymblanter persists in supporting this ideological bully, and not those who are striving for neutrality and balance. His administrative privileges urgently stand in need of review! Kenfree (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Ymblanter, just so we're clear on this, you're not getting any "kind of reward for the services involved"! Volunteer Marek 20:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here is the opening statement by Kenfree on Neutral point of view noticeboard. He tells: "The following editors were previously named in the mediation request because of their support for this tendentious editing: 37.214.122.178 Volunteer Marek Sidelight12 Galassi Capitalismojo Ymblanter NE Ent." There are 7(!) editors who disagree with him. And what Kenfree does? Brings this to various noticeaboards, reverts and endlessly argue. This is WP:DE classic. My very best wishes (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it interesting how whenever these tendentious editors are caught in a contradiction, as was user:Ymblanter here, they just blithely change the subject (to yet more ad hominems, lol). Even if there were any truth to user:My very best wishes' claims in the preceding paragraph (and there is little) what does any of this have to do with whether or not [[user:Volunteer Marek is guilty of edit warring? This user and others continue to turn the subject to me instead, but I am not the one reported for edit warring, so it is all so much deflection. As to user:My very best wishes' argument above, this user falsely counts six named editors as seven, and omits mention of the three editors who support changing the lede, so as to make it seem like I am the only editor who advocates this. This kind of one-sided reporting is precisely what is meant by "tendentiousness," of which this user' actions demonstrate endless textbook examples. The reference to WP:DE above is a real hoot because these are exactly the traits demonstrated by Volunteer Marek and those few editors who collude with that user. I have noticed this regular tendency to project unto (blameless) others the precise behaviors they themselves perennially exhibit. Kenfree (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was not caught in any contradiction, please stop lying. I seriously suggest that WP:BOOMERANG should be applied here. Kenfree created enough disruption and they truly deserve some rest.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The continual abuse of the term "disruption" for opinions not shared by this administrator, coupled with his recent threat to block users "guilty" of it, should be enough to bring into question his fitness for the status. The contradiction is very clear above between the evident fact of editorial dispute, documented on both the talk page and the NPOV noticeboard, and his ridiculous claim that there is editorial "consensus." He strips the term of its clear meaning, to reserve it for only those on one side of an open question. Kenfree (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There has been no 3RR violation by either User:Volunteer Marek or User:Kenfree. It's possible that there is long-term edit warring but to show that it we need a well-organized complaint, which this is not. People are reverting about the term 'disinformation' but I don't see any RfC or well-organized talk discussion about that word. It implies that RT is being deliberately untruthful which ought to require a fair amount of proof. It may be possible to gather together some examples so that the reader will figure it out on their own, if that's really the case. If you want people to be blocked for long-term revert-warring against consensus you should be able to point to conclusive discussions somewhere. I see a talk page thread to remove the NPOV tag; that one seems conclusive. While we wait for this report to be closed, I am alerting User:Kenfree and User:Spotter 1 to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE. The vehemence of some of the statements on the talk page is starting to fall under the criteria for WP:ARBEE enforcement, in my opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in the report, this issue was discussed in the talk pages here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RT_(TV_network)#NPOV_dispute:_Slanting_of_lead_is_out_of_control, and I would now add this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RT_(TV_network)#Recent_edit. More importantly, as the disruptive editors were not forthcoming in explaining their position in Wikipedian terms, the discussion on the NPOV noticeboard, also referenced in the original report,which has a more public character, is vital for understanding the positions (and editorial practices) in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#RT_.28TV_Network.29...neutral_feedback_desperately_needed.21 After reviewing these, it would seem impossible to say that there has not been "well-organized discussion about that word." The principle stated above, " It [the allegation of disinformation]implies that RT is being deliberately untruthful which ought to require a fair amount of proof." should be self-evident, but as this fair amount of proof is nowhere to be found, and as the many appended references do not provide any, the statement does not belong in this artice, AND CERTAINLY NOT IN THE LEDE. But dozens of attempts to clean it up have been blocked by Marek's reversions, as the history page will demonstrate. I would request that if the edit warring charge does not pass muster, that Marek (et al.)be instructed to accept the deletion of this allegation until such time as sufficient proof is discovered to merit its inclusion. Is that asking too much? Kenfree (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that a separate AE request should be filed about Kenfree, I can certainly do it, however I am not so sure given the outcome of my previous AE request. My very best wishes (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I already explained, and backed up with close to twenty diffs, Kenfree has been reverted on this issue by seven or eight different editors. They're clearly edit warring against consensus. They're also engaged in forum shopping, bringing the same thing to one noticeboard after another in search of a result they want. Volunteer Marek 16:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the board where you are supposed to explain the problem in itty-bitty diffs which admins can understand without them needing to read 20,000 words of prior discussion at other noticeboards. Don't worry about needing to file at AE, if you make a case here which is convincing enough, admins will follow up. A long list of he-said she-said diffs doesn't really parse. There is a lack of adequate talk page discussions which have a clear result. Hotly disputed pages need RfCs very badly. Why doesn't somebody propose draft paragraphs for the lead and then have an RfC. If the well-organized debate about the POV tag is any example it may not take long to get a result. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While the evidence of wrongdoing by Kenfree (two personal attacks on Ymblanter and persistent edit warring in EE area) is right here (see above), one probably can not report him to WP:AE, because he received an official warning about this only today... My very best wishes (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another of Ms. Harpy's growing list of fabrications! For the record, I have not been officially warned about any "wrongdoing" as she alleges, and my talk page and its history are evidence enough (please see). Kenfree (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: No action against User:Volunteer Marek. Whether sanctions are needed against anyone else depends on a better case being made. Those of you who think you are the consensus, prove it by holding well-organized discussions on the article talk that reach definite conclusions about the wording. Those who may fear they are in a minority should work on finding better sources and showing their skill in negotiation. Anyone who seems unable to edit neutrally on this topic should be aware that article bans are possible under WP:ARBEE. I don't recommend any use of WP:AE until more thorough discussions are held. EdJohnston (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lamcy0803 reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Miss World 2014 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lamcy0803 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

18:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633691493 by Davey2010 (talk)"
17:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633691493 by Davey2010 (talk)"
17:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633691493 by Davey2010 (talk)"
17:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633689931 by Jaam0121 (talk)"
17:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633689931 by Jaam0121 (talk)"
17:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633688214 by Jaam0121 (talk)"
16:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633680910 by Jaam0121 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

17:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Miss World 2014. (TW)"
17:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Miss World 2014. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

18:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

Lamcy0803 seems to prefer edit warring over communicating as he's now reached 7rr, I had hoped both these [55] [56] edit summaries would've been enough but clearly not, Jam0121 even attempted to discuss [57] but to no avail, I have also unintentionally reached 4rr without even realizing so my apologies for that, Cheers, –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True, the user is indifferent to the warnings, does not comply with standards, just create an edit war in the article.Jaam0121 (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Blocked 48 hours by User:Ronhjones. User:Davey2010, please be careful in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:68.98.224.182 reported by User:Spshu (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Template:Multicol-break

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred Diffs of the user's reverts:

Template:Multicol-end

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76]

Discospinster warning about deletion

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

Comments:
IP editor was already banned for edit warring on MGM. I have previously attempt a request for page protection on the article to get him to discussion to no avail administratively except for the acknowledgement of the block. He has also been using foul or attacking language in his edit summaries. Spshu (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few more reverts have been done by this IP editor, since the initial report and have been added to the above lists. Spshu (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He has now expanded to reverting other articles that I have recently edit and is making threats in the edit summaries.

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Template:Multicol-end

Spshu (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely enough a registered user, Nathaniel43284, that has not been editing for 2 years all of a sudden is editing again and reverting my restorations and then some. Spshu (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The IP's edit summaries are blockable on their own, so I've blocked for 72 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel43284 was presumably editing while logged out. I've blocked for 72 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, PhilKnight. Spshu (talk) 00:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Saadkhan12345 reported by User:Akmal94 (Result: No violation)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[diff]
[diff]
[diff]
[diff]

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

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

Comments:

This user is constantly editing the gallery page by adding new pictures of his countrymen therefore he is being biased. He changed my edit once when i sent him a message not to and then he did it again. I don't know what his problem is but he is constantly editing the gallery page by re-adding the same pictures over and over again even though i changed it. He does not get that we are a community and we must respect each other's edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akmal94 (talk • contribs)

No violation. Obviously, the report is malformed (no diffs listed), but there's also been no breach of WP:3RR, or even close to one by the reported user.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wearypoet reported by User:Dsprc (Result: Blocked)

Page: R. Kelly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wearypoet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Consecutive edits made from 21:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC) to 21:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
1. 21:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 21:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "/* 1989–94: Born Into the 90's and 12 Play */"
3. 21:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "What's the point? Jive was merged to RCA and he was signed in 1991, not 1989"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Previous AN3 here [87], blocked for edit warring and warned by Admin after page protection here: [88]; Editor immediately reverted/censored content against consensus as soon as their temporary block expired. See diffs in report above and article's talk page. Editor has a long pattern of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing and appears to have no desire to reach consensus nor compromise on content and repeatedly violates WP:NPA, WP:CIV. I have been exceptionally patient but if nothing else is done on this matter they will continue to WP:DISRUPT the encyclopaedia. -- dsprc ^[talk] 04:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of four days.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Akmal94 reported by User:Saadkhan12345 (Result: No action)

The editor has so far made no more edits since being warned about edit warring. The editor filing the report should also take note of WP:BOOMERANG. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[diff] 9 November
[diff] 9 November
[diff] 9 November
[diff] 9 November
[diff] 11 November
[diff] 11 November
[diff] 11 November

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

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

Comments:
Please check history of the article to see how he's been reverting my edits "not being popular etc"...despite the fact they are well known. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 10:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per my observation Saadkhan12345 is not only an extreme P.O.V.pusher and an edit-warrior but he is also very likely abusing multiple accounts and evading sanctions. I strongly suspect that he is indef-blocked User:UsmanKhanShah and was using this now-blocked IP [89] and is currently using User:عثمان خان شاہ/Saadkhan12345 IDs on the same pages. This edit and this one strongly indicate that the person using the now-blocked IP is Saadkhan12345. I don't think SPI is necessary at this point, the evidence is convincing.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 12:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Krzyhorse22 is quick to lay blame and point fingers but I think it would be quite interesting to note your history on the article Operation Zarbe-azb:

[diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
[diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
[diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
[diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
[diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
[diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
[diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
[diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
[diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
[diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
[diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
[diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
[diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
[diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
[diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
[diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
[diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
[diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
[diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan

and regarding POV pushing and pro-afghan propaganda which thanks to User:Faizan has been kept in check: Propaganda proof User:Krzyhorse22 im surprised that you can still blame me for POV pushing meanwhile one can easily, by a quick glance at you talk page, notice something quite more extreme here... the only dispute i had was on Zarb-e-azb.Btw if you think User:عثمان خان شاہ is me and User:UsmanKhanShah was me thn plz open up an SPI investigation lol Saadkhan12345 (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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:AsharaDayne reported by User:Ventic (Result:Blocked)

Both AsharaDayne and Ventic blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring--Ymblanter (talk) 11:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hey! The case seems not too simple also because I am involved.

I am editing usually another language wikipedia, so I'm not very involved in English version which has so many good users and articles. I was at the time it began reading about communism in North Korea and I saw that there's no North Korea in a list of Communist states, so I thought I'm changing a small misunderstanding. But it seems that since at least one year someone cancel any form of mentioning it using such or similar statement: "North Korea is still called communist by some western media to demonize communism" "Right wing radicals often call it "communist" to demonise Communism." etc.

Ok I understand that considering NK as communist may be disputable but in a source trying to be an objective one that should be mentioned from as neutral point of view as possible. The person accepts only two solutions: no mentioning or statements like "de facto feudal state", "not communist any more" etc. The discussion with the guy seems to be a bit emotional from his side ("you're blind" etc). Any of my propositions of compromise was rejected.

I agree with this silly "war" there was also my fault. I am not en wiki user; unfortunatelly for a short period of time I thought it's funny even. But it's just silly. So I want to report myself here too.

I suppose that three persons (AsharaDayne, 南天星斗 and 110.33.66.212) fighting over time with possibility of NK being communist are in reality one and the same person. At least they use the same slogans.

I think that nowadays when a lot of people uses wiki as their source of knowledge it's not good to present some things from non-neutral perspective. And it's not good that the point of view presented in wiki articles may depend on people who are fighting more efficiently for their beliefs.

I didn't put here links of various versions because there's a lot of it. You may see it in article history though. And there was a discussion in the article's talk page.

Thank you for your assistance in resolving this small issue. I hope it's a right page.

Have a nice day!

Ventic (talk) 11:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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:UniGuard reported by User:Avono (Result:Sock blocked )

Page: List of awards and nominations received by Mohanlal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: UniGuard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

15:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633812324 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) damage"
13:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 633798930 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk): Better known version. (TW)"
13:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633806902 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) it's an important award in the silver jubilee of "Kerala formation". You are just considering your individual point of view."
Consecutive edits made from 13:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC) to 13:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
1. 13:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633805125 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)"
2. 13:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633804945 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)"
09:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 633553704 by UniGuard (talk): A trial revert for avoiding edit conflict while sourcing. (TW)"
10:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 3 edits by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) to last revision by UniGuard. (TW)"
10:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 633553704 by UniGuard (talk): Revert over vandalism. article under maintenance.unsourced will be reliably sourced within 2 weeks. Don't remove contents. (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

09:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on List of awards and nominations received by Mohanlal. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[90] User talk:UniGuard#Policies and procedures

Comments:

edit warning over unsourced content, unreliable sources and layout? seems to be issues with ownership, also went forum shopping over the removal of the unsourced content. Avono (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

also personal attack at [91] Avono (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

also tried to refactor my report at [92] Avono (talk) 18:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely as a sock of User:Wiki-senetor. Amortias (T)(C) 21:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thomas.W reported by User:Overdtop (Result: No violation--at least not by Thomas.W , Overdtop blocked for personal attack)

Previous version reverted to: [93]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[94]
[95]
[96]
see comment below

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

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bosnia_and_Herzegovina#Calling_of_Bosnia_and_Herzgovina.27s_government> Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [97]

Comments: Don't have 4r because User:Timbouctou seems to be a sock-puppet of the reported User:Thomas.W: a behavioral pattern is clear as they pass the Wikipedia:DUCK - their accounts were created 8 and 9 years ago, and the sock puppet made sudden, first-ever appearance when making the 3rd revert, conveniently enabling the reported user to avoid the 3RR. Also, the duo repeated the exact same behavior in the article Presidency_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina too, over the same 24h period. So it's hardly a coincidence that only these 2 users are involved in the same game of avoiding the 3RR, in 2 separate articles and in the same 24-hour period, while having a problem with the same edit (stating of regime type for country of Bosnia and Herzegovina as being protectorate, as per 100s of reliable media/scientific/legal sources). Please run a CheckUser if necessary. Reason: these are the most important articles about a country, and the user uses most unbelievable scare tactics like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Overdtop#Discretionary_sanctions_notice Overdtop (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So apparently User:Overdtop seems to have read a book review (not even a book) in something called Peace Magazine in which a reviewer casually interpreted someone else's article on Bosnian politics as proof of it being a "protectorate", as opposed to a sovereign country. Overdtop then went on to insert this "reference" into a series of articles on Bosnia and Herzegovina, ([98], [99], [100]) basically redefining the concept of Bosnia and Herzegovina. ThomasW reacted and reverted, then engaged in fruitless discussion at Overdtop's talk page, and told him to seek consensus first. The said consensus was never reached - his edits were actually opposed by other editors at Talk:Bosnia and Herzegovina ([101], [102]). He reverted, I reverted, and then he ran over here to file some pointless report, ingeniously suspecting me and ThomasW are one and the same. Oh please oh please oh please do run a CheckUser. Timbouctou (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to see here. The edit warrior is Overdtop; Thomas has reverted only twice. Now, Overdtop has been given the obligatory BALKAN warning and hopefully they'll stop this now, but just in case, I'll remind Overdtop that those discretionary sanctions govern a lot of the articles they've been editing, and that, depending on circumstances, one single revert can be blockable, especially given their apparent penchant for edit warring. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overdtop blocked for gross personal and national attack. Acroterion (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Agile Falcon and User:Calssico reported by User:Iselilja (Result:)

OK, I tried to handle this without the use of blocks, but seems I failed. They have about twenty reverts each on Moroccan genetics. Warnings: 1, 2 and more. Iselilja (talk) 04:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mfield (Oi!) 05:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Page protected also semi protected as IPs appear to have been involved most recently Mfield (Oi!) 05:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gringoladomenega reported by User:KyleRGiggs (Result: )

Page: Template:Spain squad 2014 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gringoladomenega (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

05:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "/* October 2014 */"
17:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "/* November 2014 */"
17:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "/* November 2014 */"
17:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "/* November 2014 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit with no reason for many many times, warned him would be considered "vandalism" already but no avail. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 05:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:ComfyKem reported by User:DrogoChubb (Result: Both warned)

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff 1 diff 2

Comments: He needs to compromise about the section and attempt to work together.--DrogoChubb (talk) 13:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warned. Both ComfyKem and DrogoChubb are edit warring, although neither has breached WP:3RR (three reverts each in a 24-hour window). If either persists in their reverts, they may be blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war & abuse at Tomb Raider (Result: Locked and one block)

Users Peacemaker67 & Parsecboy are persistently reverting from the agreed UK spelling to US spelling, also:

greed spelling is shown here [103]
user Peacemaker67 is being abusive, see [104] and now [105]

This is an ongoing ENGVAR "issue" that this IP-hopping "coward" is driving, see history of Tomb Raider and other articles. It is a clear block-evasion. User:Parsecboy and I are well aware of the disruption. The IP is block-evading and has no business here. EOS. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 15:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peacemaker67. The spelling variant for Tomb Raider has long been agreed and is clearly stated on the Talk page. Also, there is no excuse for abuse such as name calling which includes your repeated use of 'coward' as well as [106] and [107]

Rubbish, this is a clear call-out for your ongoing ENGVAR crusade. The articles should just be semi'd to protect us all from the waste of time you represent. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 16:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peacemaker67. There's nothing rubbish about noting you have been abusive, as can be seen from the above links. There's nothing rubbish about noting you are changing from the agreed spelling variant, as can be seen from the above link.

parsecboy is at 4RR, but can anyone else hear a duck?

Note. The article has been locked and Peacemaker blocked by Ronhjones.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And parsecboy?? Peacemaker67 and parsecboy were both firmly in the wrong because, as the talk page states, the WP:ENGVAR is British English. The British English spelling of the word is 'centring'.^[1] and not 'centering' as both Peacemaker67 and parsecboy repeatedly edit warred over. The fact that parsecboy is an admin makes it even more serious as admins should abide by the rules that they expect others to follow. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DieSwartzPunkt, neither you nor the IP is signing your posts. If you don't start doing so, I'm going to close this discussion. As it is, it's difficult enough to parse.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Twas not deliberate, but purely an oversight. I think the sig got lost in the move from WP:ANI DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was wider than just the Tomb Raider article (which should indeed be in BrEng, I did not notice that it was in fact a British topic - all I saw was the IP changing the variety of spelling on yet another article). See for instance this edit with the summary "non-US subject so incorrect to use US spelling" - a bit of linguistic imperialism that's unfortunately all too common amongst residents of Britain, I'm afraid. There's a reason we have WP:RETAIN. I'll also be blocking the OP for evading the block on the other IPs he's used. Parsecboy (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also point out that I was not notified of this discussion as per the bright red instructions. Parsecboy (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parsecboy, I'm assuming your justification for edit warring was block evasion. If that's correct, why was Peacemaker blocked? Wouldn't they be able to claim the same justification? (Sorry about the notification. It's the OP's burden to do so, but I usually check and do so if they don't. Here, the report itself was malformed, so I neglected to do that.)--Bbb23 (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - I attempted to discuss with the OP on his original IP but he apparently had no interest in that. As for Peacemaker, I don't know, exactly, but I'd wager the less than civil edit summaries probably factored into it. A week may be a bit excessive, though, but perhaps the blocking admin was just matching the blocks I had applied to the IPs (which, incidentally, started at 31 hours and was only lengthened after he started evading the block). And no worries, it's not your responsibility to notify me (or anyone else involved). Parsecboy (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Centring

[1] ttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/Centring

[1]

@@ Line 233: / Line 233: @@
 :::::I believe this had made my point. --[[User:Kansas Bear|Kansas Bear]] ([[User talk:Kansas Bear|talk]]) 16:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
+:::::: Quite the opposite, and this isn't really off-topic- -- you've thoroughly confirmed that you don't understand the policy:
+:::::: '''[[Chopin]]''' has an entire section discussing the notability of his Polish ''nationality''.
+:::::: '''[[Bach]]''' was born in present-day Germany, and the article extensively discusses his role in the development of the "German style" of music.
+:::::: As for '''[[Galileo]]''' and '''[[Beethoven]]''', we don't generally distinguish nationalities between different states of the Holy Roman Empire.  Instead we generally treat people born in the parts that became Italy as Italian, and the parts that became Germany as German.  If they were using ethnicity, the [[Beethoven]] lede would list him as a "Belgian" composer.
+:::::: What's becoming increasingly clear here, is that this was an incident in which three editors who insisted on a completely mistaken understanding of a rather simple rule, ganged-up on a fourth who actually understood it. Looking at the talk, he expressed his view in clear and concise terms.  He was met with attacks, anger, nastiness, threats, accusations of bias, and an obvious abject refusal to engage in reasonable discussion.
+:::::: The simple solution here would have been to take "Persian" out of the lede, and have a separate section of the article discuss the sources and notability (if any) of his Persian heritage.  In fact, the poster proposed that, but the three opponents refused to entertain it.  Why?
+:::::: I'm not defending the 3RR -- but the context is one of an outside editor trying to do the correct thing (improperly), first raising the matter in talk in a reasonable way and seeking compromise and discussion, when three other editors abusively and unreasonably refused to include him/her in the discussion and instead insisted on a mistaken position that coincidentally coincides with the known POVs of at least two of them.  [[User:Djcheburashka|Djcheburashka]] ([[User talk:Djcheburashka|talk]]) 19:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards