Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

    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.

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to create a new report

    User:Altetendekrabbe reported by User:AnkhMorpork (Result: declined)

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


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

    • 1st revert: [1]
    • 2nd revert: [2]
    • 3rd revert: [3] No intervening edit between 3 & 4
    • 4th revert: [4]
    • 5th revert: [5]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1 He has been repeatedly warned and blocked for similar behavior at this article and others.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments: Altetendekrabbe continues to edit war at the same article that he was blocked for doing so on 29 June 2012. Typically, he does not use make use of the talk page to explain his edits but continues to revert. Clarification: The reverts removed sourced material, "...would also face discrimination in personal law." attributed to this source which has been the subject of previous disagreements. A version was first added on June 28 and has since endured multiple edit wars. Altetendekrabbe knows that several editors support its inclusion and has made repeated efforts to remove this particular paragraph.1, 2, 3 To continue this mindful of other editors objections is disruptive.



    comment: the fact is that user ankhmorpork is tag-teaming with others, re-adding content that is disputed. he is clearly gaming the system. just take a look on the "reverts" he provided. an ip added inserted content into sourced material and thereby causing misrepresentation of the sources. this has been noted by another editor as well. user ankh, frotz and estlandia are tag-teaming and reverting my edits blindly. the so-called 4. "revert" is not a revert at all. i have also filed a sockpuppet report in order to get to the bottom of this matter. there has been a dispute on the dhimmi-page for a while now involving contentious edits. the dispute was more or less settled but an ip-69.12.173.8 showed up and made contentious edits again. after i reverted the ip-account user frotz reverted me [6]. i find it highly suspicious that frotz reverted me immediately after i reverted the ip. in addition, the ip-account has less than 20 edits and jumped right into a conflict, making edits that are advocated by user frotz. after i reverted frotz... estlandia and ankh also came along... as *always*. i have provided some of the diffs in order to established the tag-teaming here, [7]. other editors have noticed this blatant tag-teaming as well, [8]. THIS CAN NOT GO ON UNPUNISHED.-- altetendekrabbe  13:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This would be funny if it wasn't so sad. I made the contentious IP edits. I did so because I happened to look at the dhimmi page and thought, "no this just isn't right". I had no idea there was some ongoing battle but the fact that similar people can AT RANDOM make similar edits should mean something, and let me be obvious about what it should mean: that the dhimmi page without them is quite inadequate. Yes, I am not a huge wikipedia editor, so what. I wasn't logged on when I made the edits, when the disappeared and it became obvious there was some fight going on I logged in (actually I tried to create an account only to find my username taken and believing that no one else would have my name I figured I must have some old wikipedia account so I tried a password. Et voila.). I now seem to have waded into this controversy because certain people apparently are less concerned with what dhimmi means and more concerned with ensuring that there not be anything on the page that could possibly put Islam into a bad light. "THIS CAN NOT GO UNPUNISHED"??? Wow, how pathetic.--Whatdafuq (talk) 00:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The original, supposedly sourced, content was substantially changed without adjusting the sources. The sources can't both support the original content and the revised content. In addition, the changes that Altetendekrabbe reverted do appear to be POV (and have some grammatical errors) so it is reasonable for Altetendekrabbe to revert them and call for a discussion and / or validation of the sources before the changes are made. Frotz's revert of Altetendekrabbe's revert was the start of the edit war and shouldn't have been done. That is, the edit summary Frotz used "state your case on the talk page" is what Frotz should have done instead of reverting Altetendekrabbe. QU TalkQu 13:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the above. However, the revert also removed sourced material, "...would also face discrimination in personal law." attributed to this source which has been the subject of previous disagreements. (addition) A version was first added on June 28 and has since endured multiple edit wars. Altetendekrabbe knows that several editors support its inclusion and has made repeated efforts to remove this particular paragraph.1, 2, 3 To continue this mindful of other editors objections is disruptive. Ankh.Morpork 13:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    nonsense. check my edits. in one edit, that had absolutely NOTHING to do with the reverts[9], i removed a direct and explicit reference, not content, to bernard lewis as his opinion is *not a mere opinion* but an established fact, as per wp:npov. the other line i removed was about muslim sentiment which i felt didn't belong in the concerned section. what is important is the way the dhimmi status was administrated *officially* by the state institutions. in addition, the line you mentioned is in the lead, and the two lines i removed are in the main text....here is a comparison between the last version from yesterday, as edited by user marek, and my first revert [10]. you are being disingenuous as always. the line you mentioned was removed, and rightly so, due to no consensus yesterday, and *not* by me. nb! ankh is now adding other unrelated diffs in order to confuse the reader. -- altetendekrabbe  14:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    @QU, exactly, thanks. there is also enough evidence of tag-teamig, involving ankhmorpork, estlandia and frotz. i dunno what they are trying to accomplish by harassing me. -- altetendekrabbe  13:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Your changes are reverted by anyone not because there is tag-teaming going on, but because there is something wrong with your edits.

    Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 14:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    There's nothing wrong with his edits - removing obviously POV text (which is being inserted for less than decent reasons) - is exactly the right kind of edit. There is tag-teaming going on, the only question is whether it's being coordinated or not.VolunteerMarek 15:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    define "anyone"...-- altetendekrabbe  14:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "...the revert also removed sourced material, ...would also face discrimination in personal law. attributed to this source" - yes, as you say (AnkhMorpork) that does seem to be supported by the quoted source. QU TalkQu 14:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    i repeat, i did *not* remove that line. see my answer to ankhmorpork. please check yesterday's last version. here is a comparison between the last version from yesterday, as edited by user marek, and my first revert [11]. ankhmopork is now *lying* in order to save his own skin. the line he mentioned was removed, and rightly so, due to no consensus yesterday. other editors have noticed the blatant tag-teaming by ankhmorpork, estlandia and frotz, [12]. THIS IS HOUNDING AND CAN NOT GO ON UNPUNISHED. -- altetendekrabbe  14:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Point of order: I wasn't stating that you had removed that content. Rather I was agreeing that the content seemed to be supported by the source and, therefore, there may be a case for including it. QU TalkQu 22:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I've noticed this pattern before. Although I believe that Altetendekrabbe is trigger happy with the revert-button, I also believe that in this diff (number 99) VolunteerMarek's comments are spot on about AnkhMorpork, Estlandia and Frotz' behaviour. A similar pattern may be seen in the last 50 edits on the Eurabia [13], Criticism of the Quran,[14] possibly meriting some kind of WP:HOUND investigation. It should also be noted that an extremely inactive [15] IP editor has entered the dispute on the dhimmi page the last couple of days, leading to a sockpuppet investigation[16]. To me, this seems to be a clear case of tag teaming. --benjamil (talk) 22:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that there is tag teaming. And edits have inserted text into sourced material, with the result that sources are misrepresented. Reverting is correct in such circumstances. This article has been targeted by POV pushers for years. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    i want to thank benjamil and itsmejudith to pointing this out! there is absolutely NO DOUBT: ankhmorpork, estlandia and frotz are tag-teaming against me on several pages. a WP:HOUND investigation is indeed needed. by the way, another wp:spa has arrived [17]. with total of 3 edits and a charming name. clearly, a tag-teaming duck. update: the duck has now reverted 4 times in less than 24 hours. highly suspicious that he came out of nowhere and started edit warring.-- altetendekrabbe  22:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I am closing this report as declined. Not that there wasn't a formal 3rr violation on Altendekrabbe's part, but in this case the POV violation on the part of the tag-teamers on the other side of the dispute was so glaring that I simply refuse to apply the normal edit-warring rules in this case. That's not to mean that Altendekrabbe is encouraged to do this again – he needs to find ways of enlisting outside help against this kind of abuse earlier, before it comes to this amount of edit-warring. But the real warning goes to the editors on the other side: AnkhMopork, Estlandia, Frotz and the 69.* IP. You all should be ashamed of yourselves. Seeing several experienced editors repeatedly revert-warring an edit back in that was so glaringly and obviously tendentious, and doing so blindly and without even trying to tweak the most obviously offensive parts of it, is an absolute disgrace. If I see inexcusable behaviour like this from you again, I will block for tendentious disruptive editing alone, no matter how many or how few reverts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Allow me to explain my side of the story. In 2008 I became involved in the row over pictures in the Muhammad article. I created the skeleton of the FAQ for that article to help cool down that mess. Since then I have been watching over that and several other Islam-related articles that I felt would be prone to vandalism or whitewashing. It's not unreasonable to assume that other editors did the same. Altetendekrabbe's accusation that I was stalking him is bogus. He appeared on the scene with contentious edits, refused to discuss them in any meaningful way, and refused to accept changes that he himself requested (ie, asking for citations, but refusing to accept any). Instead he resorted to personal attacks. He then spread his discord to other articles that I was already watching. When I saw that and called him out on his actions, he accused me of stalking. I have had no public or private contact with these other editors accused of tagteaming with me save for commentary on the various talk pages. This "tagteaming" is another result of Altetendekrabbe's belligerent behaviour. Several people, myself included, saw his edits as problematic and took action. Faced with this and unable to admit fault or wrong, Altetendekrabbe accused the most convenient editors of having some axe to grind against him. AnkhMorpork's report was not about Altetendekrabbe engaging in a 3RR violation, but instead that he was going back to the same kind of editwarring he engaged in when he was banned thrice before. Rather than accusing AnkhMopork, Estlandia, and me of malfeasance, please take a good hard look at how Altetendekrabbe has conducted himself. Those you accuse have always explained their actions, offered proof, and graciously accepted criticism. Altetendekrabbe has not, to date, behaved in any similar way on these Islam-related articles. There was no tag-teaming. There was no stalking. The disruptive edits were Altetendekrabbe's. -- Frotz(talk) 00:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this is a serious misjudgment on the part of Fut.Perf. who has bought into the conspiracy theory that all the users who have been reverting Altetendekrabbe, are tagteaming. This decision should be reviewed by another sysop. Basically, Fut. Perf. gives license for Altetendekrabbe to continue violating the 3RR, whilst all others who revert him become the real ones blocked for supposed tag-teaming. Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 08:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It's probably because you're being so blatant about the tag teaming.VolunteerMarek 11:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't warn you because of alleged or real or imagined tag-teaming. I warned you all because the concrete edit you were pushing back in [18][19][20][21] was so glaringly bad no serious and responsible Wikipedian could ever have considered it an improvement in terms of neutrality. Your editing displayed reckless disregard to the demands of neutrality and – insofar as you just blindly blanket-reverted the whole thing back in, without making any attempt to separate the acceptable from the unaccptable bits – a refusal to engage in constructive collaboration towards a better version. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Moviebob and User:212.69.46.83 reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: A Scanner Darkly (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Moviebob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 212.69.46.83 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)


    Previous version reverted to: [22]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:A Scanner Darkly (film)#Plot length

    Comments:
    As soon as the IP address was given the uw-ewsoft warning, this SPA account begin conveniently editing in its stead both on the article and on the talk page; both IP and account have a singular focus on this article, making the same edits on the article. - SudoGhost 19:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I am reverting it to the superior version - sudoghost seems intent on vandalising the page by uploading inferior content. I'll stop reverting when he / she / it stops vandalising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.69.46.83 (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    You are going to have to review WP:NOTVAND, then. Regardless of whether you are right or not, you may not edit war. I concur with SudoGhost that the summary you inserted is overly excessive in length.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if my edits were "inferior" and not in line with WP:FILMPLOT, they still wouldn't be vandalism under Wikipedia's guidelines. The similar edit summaries from the IP and the named account further demonstrate that they are the same person. - SudoGhost 19:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Immediately after the block expired, they're still edit warring. - SudoGhost 22:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I semiprotected the article and warned User:Moviebob. He and the IP appear to be the same person. EdJohnston (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:89.100.207.51 reported by User:Blackshod (Result: stale/no violation)

    Page: Parachute Regiment (United Kingdom) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 89.100.207.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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


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

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

    Comments:

    I only made 2 reverts. You also made 2 reverts. Why are you accusing me of breaching 3RR? 89.100.207.51 (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • 89...you have already had the difference between WP:3RR and WP:EW explained - you can be blocked for edit-warring after a single edit (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:EW: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page 'repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion" (emphasis mine). If edit warring is repeated overriding, how can a single edit be edit warring? 89.100.207.51 (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Already blocked Unless there's some bigger issue here, I'm not seeing much except maybe two reverts a few days ago. Kuru (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bradswanson2010, User:217.33.166.226, and User:81.105.0.14 reported by User:Theopolisme (Result: protected)

    Page: The Zombie Diaries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    World of the Dead: The Zombie Diaries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Bradswanson2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    217.33.166.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    81.105.0.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: This is such a long (100s of reverts) and convoluted battle, but: this is right before the battle really heated up on World of the Dead, and this is before the most recent battles on The Zombie Diaries - however,

    There are honestly so, so, so many - here are some:

    1. 00:32, 4 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 498978178 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")
    2. 23:21, 4 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 500700423 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")
    1. 11:59, 7 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 500789735 by 217.33.166.226 (talk)")
    1. 17:31, 8 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501218083 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")
    1. 15:07, 9 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501360637 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")
    1. 12:04, 10 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501436181 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")
    1. 18:26, 11 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501620001 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")
    1. 02:45, 12 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501773550 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")
    1. 12:26, 12 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501855798 by 217.33.166.226 (talk)")
    1. 18:09, 12 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501893975 by CallDisp (talk)")
    1. 20:52, 12 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501929884 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")
    1. 23:59, 12 July 2012 (edit summary: "/* Reception */")
    1. 00:05, 13 July 2012 (edit summary: "/* Reception to misleading DVD cover */")
    1. 00:06, 13 July 2012 (edit summary: "/* Reception to misleading DVD cover */")
    1. 16:24, 13 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 502051882 by 217.33.166.226 (talk)")


    Some more:

    1. 00:32, 4 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 498978148 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")
    2. 23:21, 4 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 500700351 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")
    1. 11:58, 7 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 500789688 by 217.33.166.226 (talk)")
    2. 17:30, 8 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501218063 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")
    1. 15:05, 9 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501360611 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")
    1. 12:04, 10 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501436103 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")
    1. 18:26, 11 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501619942 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")
    1. 02:45, 12 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501773460 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")
    1. 12:26, 12 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501855737 by 217.33.166.226 (talk)")
    1. 12:31, 12 July 2012 (edit summary: "")
    1. 18:09, 12 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501912052 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")
    1. 20:40, 12 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501929729 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28], [29], [30]

    Comments:

    WP:DR recommends requesting page protection, especially in cases of multiple people edit-warring ... have you done that, and what was the response? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
     Doing..., thanks. Theopolisme TALK 21:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I was the answering admin at RFPP, I've protected the first article for 10 days, and note that the second had already been protected. Feel free to give me a shout if that needs revision. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Arzel reported by User:Hipocrite (Result: stale)

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


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

    • 1st revert: [31] listed as "revert" - removes Boston Globe source, along with referenced text
    • 2nd revert: [32] removes Boston Globe source
    • 3rd revert: [33] removes Boston Globe source, Houston Chronicle source, Chicago Tribune source, inserts fact check source
    • 4th revert: [34] listed as revert, removes Boston Globe source, Houston Chronicle source, Chicago Tribune source, inserts fact check source.


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35], amongst others

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Mitt_Romney#Separation_from_Bain_Capital

    Comments:

    Was there consensus on talk to add this bit sourced to the Boston Globe? If the source's relibaility was in question at the time Arzel reverted then Arzel had grounds under WP:BLPSOURCES. Note that the 3RR exemption for BLP would apply. – Lionel (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed only the sourcing, not the content. Some editors seem to think that WP is the proper place to include information to push a specific political point of view. I included a superceding source which presents the information in a neutral tone and post dates the previous sources. Arzel (talk) 03:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (Speaking as an involved editor, not an admin) There was no assertion of a BLP exemption, and no grounds to assert it. This isn't a BLP issue, just a garden-variety content dispute in which one editor racked up 4 reverts in a couple of hours. Being convinced that your reliable sources are "better" than the other guys' reliable sources is not a 3RR exemption. MastCell Talk 04:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Obvious violation of 3RR over content and sourcing, not at all protected in reversions by BLP as this person is very WP:WELLKNOWN and the sourcing was appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 04:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLP may be implicated, but only if the Boston Globe reference were obviously not a reliable source. I haven't checked, but I don't think it's obvious. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I would think "use of best source" is, indeed, a WP:BLP issue - which should be resolved by discussion. Collect (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, should be resolved by discussion -- instead of edit-warring. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    To be clear, the content remained, I only removed the content once because the main story that Boston Globe source is telling has been strongly contested as untrue by several other sources. The fact is that many people are trying to insist that Romney was actively running Bain past 1999 because of legal requirements by the SEC that his name remain on documentation until all of the paperwork was completed. The Bain people even state that there was no rush at the time because this was not something remotely considered, but all of them (some of which are Democrats) state emphatically that Romney had not part in the operations of Bain Capital after 1999 when he went to the Olympics. That I removed a source which at most claims that Romeny committed a felony and at least is a liar with a source that makes no such claim should not be something that two other editors are so quit to come to the Admin boards. I'll leave it up to the admins to decide. Arzel (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Should be noted that the Boston Globe 2012 is contradicting the Boston Globe of 2000, when the same reporters disclosed chaos in Bain due to the LACK of Romney running the company while basically on leave to run the Olympics. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 07:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Questions - Has this editor's past actions exhibited a pattern of edit warring when he thinks he is "right"? Does being "right" make violation of WP:3RR permissible? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You might as well report me because I'm on the same issue along with Azral. I've noted that two users, User:Hipocrite, the reportee, and User:Cwobeel, who are heavily invested into inserting certain material which are not neutral as an attack in that article. There's plenty of evidence such as the newly formed registration of Cwobeel with intentions of inserting that quote from an attack piece and Hipocrate not maintaining neutrality (See his contributions, plenty of accusations in the notes and talk discussions). Azral isn't the only one in reverting it because there's 3 or 4 other users that have been reverting these edits and Azral just happened to have exceeded the limits for himself. ViriiK (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Having his edits under consideration here has not prevented Arzel from carrying on with reverting: [36]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Stale - if I had reviewed this when it was live, I would have blocked; BLP is not an excuse to edit war over anything just because it's a biographical article. I've also warned Cwobell. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Arzel reported by User:MastCell (Result: duplicate )

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

    Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 10:34, 13 July 2012

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Arzel is familiar with the 3RR rule and our policies on edit-warring. He has two previous blocks for edit-warring, and has been reported here recently ([37]).

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See this thread from the current version of the talkpage

    Comments:
    Ooops... this is a duplicate with "Arzel reported by Hipocrite", immediately above. I believe both Hipocrite and I cited the same 4 reverts. MastCell Talk 00:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Andreasegde reported by User:GabeMc (Result: declined)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [38]

    • 1st revert: diff 05:58 13 July 2012
    • 2nd revert: diff 17:33 13 July 2012
    • 3rd revert: diff 17:39 13 July 2012
    • 4th revert: diff 17:44 13 July 2012
    • This diff from 05:06 7 July 2012, shows User:Andreasegde "warning" me about an upcoming edit-war. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40] 15:37 12 July 2012

    Comments:


    Alas - looks like two are tangoing there - and so the OP is not a whale of a lot more innocent than the person being reported. Collect (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    GabeMc is quite an edit warrior himself. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • The "evidence" that was supposed "warning" of an upcoming edit-war is also false. The BOTH of you should be ashamed of yourselves, especially with the crap on ANI. Grow the fuck up, or I will indeed block you both. At this point, I suggest a voluntary interaction ban. If either of you mentions the other, anywhere on this project, blocks will be-a-coming. If there is anything OTHER than proper discussion on articles, same thing. Voluntary WP:1RR across the project would be wise as well, before the community imposes these restrcitions on both of you. Capiche? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    False? How so? They are clearly warning me of an upcoming issue with "The", not? What am I missing here? Also, I have to admit that I am a bit disappointed by your comments BWilkins. I honestly thought that admins expected us to report edit-warring and disruptive behaviour, and clearly Andreasegde broke 3RR with four reverts within 13 hours on one page. Also your use of the f-word is unbecoming an admin IMO. I am getting the feeling that editors who bring complaints to AN/I are guilty by association, with little to no due process. I doubt I will ever bring another issue to AN/I for this reason, so I guess you'll win in the end, as more and more editors stop asking for help, and instead move on to another site less hostile to whistle blowers. Also, if I do not first exhaust the proper channels I will be rejected at the mediation cabal, which is what I was told there. So this attitude of "shut-up" and deal with it is not civil or mature IMO. Block me if you want, I clearly have no power to defend myself here against harrassment and bullying. I wasn't edit-warring, I was restoring a recently promoted FAC to the MoS compliant version that passed FAC just a few days ago. I'm curious, and for future reference, how would you deal with an editor who shows up at an article you've devoted 3 months to improving, and who demands wholesale changes based on an improperly implemented "consensus", from 18 months ago from another article? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    @GabeMc: Have you looked at BWilkins' profile? He has the power to punish you by suspending or blocking you from posting. You're making a BIG mistake by criticising him. @Wwilkins: You have the evidence now and yes, as I stated before, Gabe Mc IS an edit warrior. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither myself, nor other admins do punishment. Period. You both have your marching orders: voluntary WP:IBAN and WP:1RR across the entire project. Oh, by the way, that means childish BS in ANI is off limits too. The two of you are unbelievable (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The trouble with a 1RR here is that Andreasedge has at least 6-8 people who will do the edit-warring ("T' to "t") for him, so that does not solve the problem of this long-term issue at all, it just takes me out of correcting grammatical errors. As I see it, this report is cut and dry, even if the broader issue is not. Andreasedge violated 3RR and a block should be issued to that effect. If admins really think I was edit-warring, than by all means, do what you need to do to keep the peace. However, as I said, I wasn't edit-warring I was fixing tendentious editing that I was previously threatened with and which was degrading the MoS compliance of a recently passed FAC that dozens of editors spent several weeks improving during the long FAC. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The RfC at this page has now been completed, and a mediation page has been started here. User:GabeMc should concentrate on mediation, not accusations.--andreasegde (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    With all due respect Andreasedge, you are incorrect to state that the Pepper RfC is now closed, because it isn't, look here. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    User:GabeMc, please read the comments here: "*Accepted. It's pretty clear no consensus is going to be reached at that RfC, this case is accepted, we will have a mediator or mediation team assigned shortly. For the Committee, --WGFinley". He states it very obviously.--andreasegde (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I was merely pointing out that as of right now, the Pepper RfC is not in fact closed, as you keep stating. It may well be closed in the near future, or it may not be so soon, as !votes are still coming in as of just a few hours ago. For now, can we please just agree to allow the process to take its natural course and to abide by whatever decision is made, in perpetuity? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WGFinley seems to think it is. I think you should take the matter up with him.--andreasegde (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, did they say that the RfC was closed, if so where? All I know is, when I go here, the RfC appears open to me. Maybe a bot is on its way. Lets just drop it, this is going nowhere. Lets let the admins and mediators sort this out and lets stop bickering, please, I am begging you to stop and rethink your tactics. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I quote: "*Accepted. It's pretty clear no consensus is going to be reached at that RfC, this case is accepted, we will have a mediator or mediation team assigned shortly. For the Committee, --WGFinley (talk)".--andreasegde (talk) 22:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Declined BWilkins appears to be properly handling this issue. Please take heed to his warnings. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Magog, FTR, another editor disagrees with BWilkins handling of the report. Look here. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read this.--andreasegde (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have, but it says nowhere in the thread that the current RfC at Pepper was closed. It may well be soon anyway, I won't comment on this again. Please drop the stick Andreasedge. Thankfully, this issue will now be decided by someone other than you or I. Can we please participate in the process willingly and with civlility? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read this comment.--andreasegde (talk) 22:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:PRProgRock reported by User:TheRealFennShysa (Result:Indef )

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


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

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning (from another editor): [55] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning (from me): [56]

    Comments:
    I've been watching this one for a while, and editor PRProgRock is out of control. This editor has been told by more than one editor that thy need to use valid references and that the editor's personal opinions are not good enough - and yet PRProgRock continues to ram his versions through, edit-warring on this articles, as well as Masala chai and Bone (comics). However, the greater issue is that this editor was (until recently) indefintely blocked for exactly the same actions, and only had his block lifted on June 3, provided that "any further trolling, vandalism or sockpuppetry would lead, without warning or discussion, to an immediate and permanent block from editing". His use of editing without logging in constitutes sock puppetry, in my opinion, in addition to the rampant edit-warring and his complete lack of an ability to collaborate with others. Please deal with him.

    User:Viraj Kashyap reported by User:Aaron Booth (Result: already blocked)

    Page: Yahan Main Ghar Ghar Kheli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Viraj Kashyap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [57]


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [62] -Aaron Booth (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • The user was blocked for Sock Puppetry this evening, so there is no action left to take as far as this report on this noticeboard is concerned. -Aaron Booth (talk) 05:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Already blocked Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dream Focus reported by User:Myst3 (Result: Reporter blocked for 24h)

    Page: Magneto (comics) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)>
    User being reported: Dream Focus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [63]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69]

    Comments:


    I've been editing the Magneto (comics) page for years and years. I've maintained it through thick and thin until a couple of years ago, when I didn't visit as often. I sign on last night to find that the External Links had been altered according to two people, Dream Focus and J Greb, and I changed them back. They undid my changes immediately, saying the links were "fan sites." I altered the External Links and informed them that the links were not "fan sites" but researched articles. There was no way to post on the talk page of Dream Focus. He's locked his page. I posted on the Magneto (comics) talk page. My revisions for the External Links were changed back, by J Greb and Dream Focus in succession. Then Dream Focus "warned" me -- he made no attempt to communicate or resolve the issue first. He sent me a "warning alert." He's been the instigator of conflict many times in the past, and has become an expert at issuing warnings. He used the "warning alert" to bully me, not discuss this issue with me. He is just as guilty of making multiple revisions without attempting to discuss the matter, as he says I am. Like I said, his talk page is locked. I've never done this before, so I don't know if this form was completed correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myst3 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    That works both ways! I came in and changed the External Links back to what they've been for years, and my changes were reverted without discussion. Neither J Greb nor Dream Focus attempted to post anything on my personal talk page or the Magneto (comics) talk page.Myst3 (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)Myst3[reply]
    By the way, you should have no issue posting to Dream Focus' talkpage - you'll see a warning that you must be autoconfirmed, but since you are, indeed, autoconfirmed you can post there (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I just discovered this. I just posted a warning there.Myst3 (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)Myst3[reply]
    (edit conflict)
    It's worth noting that Myst3 posted here after being warned by DreanFocus - [70].
    Myst3 then proceeded to pop {{3RR}} on my talk page - [71] and DreanFocus' - [72]. Though no mention of this posting was made.
    Myst3 is grudgingly on the articles talk page, though they did so after their last revert.
    - J Greb (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted on the Magneto (comics) talk page in response to the third revert that you two did (you and Dream Focus are a tag-team, so you can get your way without doing 3 reverts each). Then I was warned. There is nothing "grudging" about it. You didn't post at all on the Talk page. Dream Focus posted to STATE his opinion, and his stance, not discuss the matter. You still aren't discussing the matter, or trying to reach a compromise. I will continue to edit the Magneto (comics) page, as I feel is needed, and you will also have to engage in discussion about my changes. Neither you nor Dream Focus attempted to discuss this matter first, after repeatedly doing reverts yourselves. As for Popping a Warning on your page, only in response to you doing the same to me. Since you both are equally at fault, then all three of us get a warning, yes?Myst3 (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)Myst3[reply]
    Read the instructions at the top of the page: You are supposed to inform the user you report, with the template provided in the red box, not not the article.
    you should also realize that discussions on talk pages may not happen at the speed or time you desire them to.
    - J Greb (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The list of reverts offered by the submitter is not persuasive. Dream Focus actually has made only two reverts in the month of July. In the list provided, #1 and #3 are the same revert, counted twice. #4 is from the month of June. When you file at 3RR, please provide good quality information. The submitter, Myst3, has reverted four times in 25 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Myst3 blocked for 24h. I realise the fourth revert is a few minutes outside the 24h, but the sheer disruptiveness of re-adding links after being repeatedly told they fail WP:EL, stating on the talk page that they intend to keep edit-warring over them, and then creating a completely spurious 3RR report on Dream Focus is clearly disruptive. Black Kite (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    User Schpinbo has vandalized the Roger Federer article and has violated the three-revert rule

    Wiki user Schpinbo keeps deleting others' edits on the Federer page without warrant, and on numerous occasions he's been warned about violating the three-revert rule. He just violated the rule this evening. He has not bothered to present his case on the Talk page, preferring instead to delete comments and edits at random. TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 03:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) I see no 3RR violation on that page (4 reverts must be made in a single day), and I do see talk page discussion. Furthermore, neither of you are doing vandalism. I do see him trying to justify his edits on the article talk page nor do I see him deleting comments. In general, too, it's not really good to say he's trolling - that typically can provoke whomever you said it to to not have as much of a discussion.
    With that said, though, I see reverts by multiple people and I'd recommend temporary full protection. Regardless of 3RR both of you must sort it out completely on the talk page - reverting during discussion is no better than without discussion.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Jasper, thank you for weighing in. Prior to this evening, Schpinbo did not appear once on the Talk page to present his case for making changes; he simply undid others' edits of the Federer article, and often with defiant arrogance. If you go to the Talk page and look at the history, you'll see that what I'm saying is true. I only described his behavior as "trolling" when he hurled insults at me both on the Talk page and my own discussion page. His motives thus seem suspect to me.
    Lastly, he seems to think that the sentence "Roger Federer is a Swiss professional tennis player who is widely regarded as the greatest of all time" is misleading; he thinks the last phrase, "greatest of all time," suggests the "greatest Swiss tennis player of all time." (The experts cited in the footnotes clearly mean "greatest player of all time" when describing Federer.) Schpinbo is the only editor of the Federer article who believes that; nobody else seems to agree with him. Would you like to go to the Talk page and put the question to everybody there? We can all vote on the matter. Anyway, thanks again for your assistance. TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 05:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    TennisAnalyst004, this is trolling. --NeilN talk to me 05:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but you sound more like Schpinbo's friend/ally than a disinterested observer. I would be interested in Jasper's take on the matter. Thanks, TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 05:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You should read WP:AGF. The first I came across either of you was when your provocative and misleading talk page section header at Talk:Roger Federer kept coming up on my watchlist. --NeilN talk to me 06:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sir, I assumed good faith with that guy in the beginning, until a) he kept undoing others' edits before presenting his case on the Talk page, and b) he began to hurl insults at me on my own talk page (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TennisAnalyst004). I think you need to read his comments and ask whether he's ever assumed good faith. Thanks, TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 06:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Just because you believe someone else isn't assuming good faith doesn't mean that you can do the same. Kaini (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kebeta reported by User:Surtsicna (Result: both blocked)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [73]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81] (I have warned him several times before)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [82] (one of many attempts)

    Comments:


    I have been begging this user to stop reverting and to discuss, but without any success. In fact, he is so keen on reverting that he even reverted a spelling correction several times after I warned him not to. I did not want to report him, but I don't know what else to do. Surtsicna (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    You violated 3RR too so if this goes on you'll get blocked too. Instead of getting yourselves blocked how about getting some other opinions?--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both editors blocked I've avoided giving either a warning/sanctions proscribed under WP:ARBMAC because this dispute does not (seem to) revolve any ethnic or national dispute. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Saint-Michel-de-Montaigne reported by Tgeairn (talk) (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: Algeria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Saint-Michel-de-Montaigne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 00:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

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

    1. 01:03, 15 July 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Ethnic groups */ another joke i assume")
    2. 01:56, 15 July 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 502332985 by NeilN (talk) omg")
    3. 18:42, 15 July 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "figures are wrong, sources are wrong, sentences are wrong!")
    4. 21:30, 15 July 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Ethnic groups */ http://books.google.com/books?id=NcYrAQAAIAAJ&q=%22Turks+in+Algeria%22&dq=%22Turks+in+Algeria%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HjYDUIezK4iF4gTu1O3zBw&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAg")
    5. 00:17, 16 July 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "if you bothered to look, you would see there is only one source given for the figure - the Turkish embassy website. You will find countless in books.google.com referring to the antiquity of the "Algerian Turks"")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —Tgeairn (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    Yes, I'm using the Talk page. Why don't you actually check the sources first, before using this facility? Saint-Michel-de-Montaigne (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Clear reverts at 00:28, 00:17, 21:30, 18:42, a few others as well. Was warned prior; warnings were removed from the editor's talk page. Kuru (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Akdc14 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Warned, editor stopped for time being)

    Page: Chiropractic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Akdc14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] Sorry, reverts are to different version.


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [89]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: not recently, anyway

    Comments:

    He's removing sourced mainstream information about the subject, and replacing it with material considered WP:FRINGE even within the subject. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Wait a sec, he stopped, maybe there is no admin action necessary, I hope Akdc14's next edit (after 01:41) is on Talk:Chiropractic. Arcandam (talk) 01:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Has anyone bothered to notify this user? Shearonink (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I just did. Arcandam (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Has there been discussion on the article's talk page? Just wondering... Shearonink (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not with Akdc14, just editsummaries. The "cadaver" reference is mentioned in the talkpage archives, as far back as 19:55, 26 August 2008, but I am willing to bet $5 that Akdc14 does not know that. Arcandam (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The edits will be restored soon....!? Arcandam (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Warned, and since he hasn't edited in the last 4 hours, prefer to wait. If editor persists in re-introducing the reverted material, come back here. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 06:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Evlekis reported by User:ZjarriRrethues (Result: Page protected for 2 days; discussion of the deeper issues will take place at the ANI thread)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [90]/[91]

    • 1st revert: [92] 18:34, 14 July 2012‎
    • 2nd revert: [93] 19:06, 14 July 2012
    • 3rd revert: [94] 22:41, 14 July 2012‎
    • 4th revert: [95] 04:17, 16 July 2012‎

    Attempts to resolve dispute: talkpage discussion between Majuru-Evlekis/User talkpage discussion between ZjarriRrethues-Evlekis

    Comments:
    I had to report Evlekis last week too because he was edit-warring again on ARBMAC-related topics and he received a final warning and a formal ARBMAC logged warning during the same week[96]. /[97] (unrelated issue/report but under ARBMAC too). The dispute/edit-war occurred after I made this edit. During the edit-war Evlekis made 3 reverts in less than 24 hours and afterwards he openly admitted that he would continue edit-warring 24 hours after his first revert in order to avoid 3RR violation (I then made my third revert here and explained my reasoning per his earlier summary. ... I am not for the time being able to touch any part of his contribution (Majuru) because I am bound by the 3RR frame.). Then his 4th revert was performed just a few hours after the 24-hour slot. This course of action constitutes a characteristic case of gaming the system(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.). During the discussions both on user talkpages and the article's talkpage I think that the decorum has not been maintained as he frequently made remarks like Me neither, you'd think an Albanian would live in Albania wouldn't you etc.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 05:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    Zjarri has got his maths wrong, I am aware of the so-called gaming policy and my latest revert stands alone inside a rolling 24-hour period. Note that whilst this vague "outside 24 hrs" scheme lacks clarity as to what is considered "just outside of 24", I went the entire 15th day of the month without editing the article. A clear 30 hours lapsed between my third and fourth reverts with around 36 between the first and fourth. If this is considered "too soon", next thing there will be a de facto 48hr window and it will get longer and longer. I have already reported the source of this chapter User:Majuru and I am hoping that action be taken against him for not only is he edit-warring but he has neither produced an argument for his content preference nor has he engaged in discussion despite several requests. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 07:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Math or no math, you are still actively pushing it without furthering discussion. The lack of progress in the only thread on the article talk page only serves the point that you are gaming the system. Even if you're not technically violating the 3RR rule, please be kind and also read the WP:EW page, as your edits would generally be considered to have ran afoul of those policies. This board is not restricted to dealing with 3RR violations, mind you... - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 07:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't read EW but I shall. Let me just point something else out. Please also note the falsification of Zjarri's statement in which he alleges that I would "openly admitted to continue the edit war" by reciting my remark whereby I ackowledged the 3RR time frame. Zjarri needs to be made to realise that 24 hours means 24 hours; even vague sidenotes on going "slightly over" have to expire sometime. There must surely come a point that a user can edit an article otherwise you may as well apply 3RR indefinitely. Furthermore, I vehemently deny that my actions constitute an edit war because I already made an amendment to my initial revision per an MOS guideline. It was Majuru who was blanking every edit I made, an account which has popped up conveniently all month to disrupt articles on which I have been involved. Both Zjarri and Majuru have an ongoing issue with my edits and they cannot for the life of them find regulatory material to refute my contributions, so apart from the occasional IPs which try their luck in removing my contributions and all unsuccessfully, often leading to a block for themselves, Zjarri ansd Majuru receive no backing or encouragement from any established editor across the site. They know they cannot achieve a consensus to have my edits reverted because I have in the past demonstrated just how far-reaching such implications would be as the policies would have to stretch well beyond our catchment area. To that end, their only way of fighting their losing battle is to gang up by collectively edit-warring and by attempting apologetic purges such as this one. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 07:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    @Penwhale. I noticed you referred to me "not having furthered discussion". Obviously it is fair to suggest this given up to this point you have only been given Zjarri's selective citations to go on. Can I make you aware that the content disupte on Lorenc Antoni was not a new issue for either Majuru or me. We had been engaged in discussion on the very same issue for other articles back in March but Majuru abandoned the talk when he ran out of arguments and saw his few points refuted. Obviously there is need for me to address the Lorenc Antoni article per se when the matter concerns every subject that falls into his category. Please take note of this conversation involving Majuru from March, in it I not only argued my case but I produced consensus citations at the bottom. I added to these yesterday in light of the Lorenc Antoni reverts but Majuru has not been seen since his own last revert. Zjarri is playing his lawyer here. But just to recap: a) my edits conformed to consensus and his flouted it; b) I did discuss the issue on the page I listed and in continuation of a talk which started before; c) a reasonable amount of time lapsed with the other party in the dispute not having returned. I believe it is a trick whereby the individual operating the account will only log in the very minute his preferred pages see unfavourable changes - he has been very quick to react this whole month - and then when the edits are restored according to his desire, the account logs out and stays inactive for long periods. Interesting we don't see daily contributions from Majuru or edits across the wider area. He seems to be perpetually involved in conflict and this month he has followed me in several places. The last time his edits did not cross mine was 22 June 2012. See for yourself. It is obviously a duff account being used by someone who operates others, that's why I requested the article be investigated. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 08:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • (edit conflict)Evlekis on Lorenc Antoni after you first reverted me I didn't make any edits so your claim is untrue and you're not getting ganged up by collective edit warring as you just claimed. That being said, you openly admitted that you would wait for the end 24-hour slot to revert again i.e. gaming the system. We've had a discussion on my talkpage, where I pointed out to you that no policy supports your theories so I consider you fully responsible for all your edits. In the very recent reports, where you got a final warning and User:EdJohnston had to deal with you regarding another case, where you violated 1RR on Kosovo, again you claimed that somehow you didn't violate any policy/maintain the decorum but other users were acting against you (as in this case, where instead of acknowledging your contributions you claim that other users are attempting apologetic purges against you. It's obvious that this kind of behaviour is disruptive because you perceive your actions as true and not subject to any policy and whenever the community is informed about your policy violations you accuse other users of your own edits.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 08:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "No policy supports the theory"? Of course not, no policy supports yours either. That is why it is called "content dispute", no right or wrong. I backed my edits by providing consensus and by demonstrating that such presentations are the practice universally across Wikipedia. Your theory in turn neither has a policy not an argument that carries substance. QED. Between you are Majuru, there are four collective reverts, and you both know that one account cannot perform this task according to rules. You both participated heavily in purges to have me removed and you are both watching me like hawks, monitoring my every fiber here just waiting for half a chance to have me dismissed. Your purges failed because any editor can see that my contributions are in good faith and my "bending the rules" has in all cases been negligible, this one included. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 08:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Four reverts between me and Majuru? I haven't even edited since your first revert and given your final warning and ARBMAC affairs it isn't prudent at all to make such comments. Anyway, the admin who dealt with you last time shouldn't have to scroll through endless blocks of such comments so I won't keep answering to your comments. That being said you got an ARBMAC and final warning, not to mention that you bending the rules as you labeled it is the cause of this report.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 08:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am inclined to agree with part of your remark about answering me. Unless you have anything new to add, anything to introduce in the shape of additional citations you need to stop adding commentary here because it is cluttering the section. I on the other hand reserve the right to refute any false statement made against me and I was only able to revert as many times as I did because someone made a revert prior to Majuru's first edit, that someone was you. Don't make me go through the history for nothing. The ARBMAC warning placed no 1RR or topic ban restriction on me, and the final warning on 1RR/3RR has not clearly been violated and considerable time passed inbetween my edits with no appearance from Majuru in that time despite me resuming the key conversation on the page listed below. Now I ask that unless you have something new to report, please stand to one side and allow other editors to use this space. Sure enough you'll very soon attempt another purge. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 09:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    • Evlekis, I thank you for your rapid reply. Unfortunately, as Lorenc Antoni was the only article that was linked -here-, most other admins that gave this a cursory look at that talk page would probably have missed the part of the iceberg that isn't the tip. I feel that if this is indeed content/behavior issue, then it may need to be taken elsewhere. Like I said, I'm still waiting for other people to comment, as I do not have enough information to process this. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 08:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Just to state I have made this edit so that readers on that talkpage will know that, yes, I made an inappropriate remark but it was sarcastic and definitely not serious, so I struck it; I also added the section which links visitors to thate page aware of previous discussion and links to consensus. We'll see what happens. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 08:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Outline of activities: Majuru/Evlekis

    Since this section will have to be appraised, it is best to present a full timeline of activities between Majuru and me relating to this accusation made against me. It would be far better to work from this outline than to judge the commentary in the section above. Of course, if as Penwhale states, this topic belongs elsewhere, then I shall redirect it. For now, here is what is what.

    1) Majuru first came to my attention in March 2012 with the following band of edits: [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], and [105]

    2) I reverted each of the contributions in accordance with universal practice coupled with consensus closer to the issues at hand. An admin decided that the best thing to do would be to discuss rather than revert with this message[106].

    3) The dialogue began here[107] with various messages exchanged. I was in the process of introducing citations where discussions had taken place in the past[108], but by that time Majuru had already abandoned the talk. His final contribution to it was here.

    4) I did not encounter Majuru again until this edit provided the springboard for the current situation. The grievance there have been settled but there was a return to the former issue from Point 3. A contribution of mine was reverted first by Zjarri here and supported by this comment. Discussion continued [109] whereby I explained myself. Zjarri then hid behind irrelevant guide pages WP:NCP and WP:LEAD which he hoped I would not read; nevertheless I did read them word for word and neither of them addressed the matter at hand. Besides, it had already been stated by the admin from March that this was a content dispute concerning invented names and there is no right or wrong but there needs to be agreement.

    5) Bang in the middle of the discussion to which Zjarri was to make no further contributions, Majuru returns after a week's absence with this. His last contributions up to July 7 were all devoted to an ongoing purge to have me driven out. When the decision went against the opposing nexus comprising Majuru, Zjarri and Ottomanist (topic-banned), Majuru disappeared.

    6) I opt to revert Majuru but the comment delivered in this summary refers to the conversation cited in Point 3.

    7) There is no need for me to recount what happened next on that article because all that has been listed by Zjarri with the original post to this thread. It is what Zjarri did not bother to explain that knocks the wind out of his sails. One and a half days had passed from my original revert to my final restoration. Given this is a consensus-based subject and not a right vs wrong argument, I could only return to the initial discussion page (because remember, this is all part of a wider scenario - not only this one article) and starting here, I began to address the matter afresh, going on to this. Please note that these comments are posted in the appropriate section to discuss that issue and they come almost 24 hours after my first revert[110], close to a time when I am permitted to return to that article.

    8) No reply to my statements from Majuru appear anywhere, the user has retired for the evening and when it is apparent that he has not returned the following morning; coupled with nearly 34 hours having lapsed since my first revert, it was apparent that the Majuru account only logs in when an emergency has occurred and with his revision intact, it did not look then as if he were to return. I on the other hand attempted discussion (Point 6), respected the 24-hour frame, so proceeded to revert. This now brings us up to date and these are all the relevant facts.

    Now just in case any admin scratches his head as to whether my discussion was in the correct place and is there a chance Majuru could not have spotted it, just take note of the record-breaking response time witnessed here just before his third revert on Lorenc Antoni. It is not as if the user had been editing the whole time, those few contributions in seven minutes which all centred on my activity were his first since the previous night. His absence prior to that was one full week, this time there is no knowing how long it could be. What is clear however is that somebody somewhere is watching me closely. Whilst the Majuru account is inactive, I am feuding with Zjarri; recently it was also Ottomanist. See? I get no peace. I know that these project pages do not require us to go into the logistics of the edits. I hereby contend that my own contributions observed consensus and universal practice, that they violated no precedure and that despite all of this, I am still happy to discuss these things with any editor wishing to talk. Surely I cannot be expected to wait until the person activating the Majuru account returns from his holidays and given that he still hasn't appeared, we are now pushing 48 hours after my first revert. It would hardly make a difference if it were to come now. I made that revert in light of consensus and universal practice and in the wake of the opposing editor being away. I ask that admins take this all into consideration. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 11:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure that continuing this discussion here will be incredibly helpful. There is currently an ANI discussion here where I think it would be more appropriate to continue this discussion. This particular edit war is being driven by Majuru and ZjarriRrethues, as well as Evlekis. To block just one user in this dispute would be inappropriate, as everyone is involved, and to block everyone would make it very difficult to come to an agreement until the blocks expired. I have protected the page in question for 2 days to stop the edit war there; however, there is a deeper issue that needs to be resolved. As I said, I don't think this is the place to do so; the thread at ANI would be a good place to continue this until we reach a resolution. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed to all suggestions. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 12:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TheSpecialUser and User:IllaZilla reported by User:Editorofthewiki (Result: Declined)

    Page: St. Jimmy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: TheSpecialUser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and IllaZilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St._Jimmy&oldid=50253169


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheSpecialUser&oldid=502602531

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Well I haven't tried to resolve it on the talk page, but I have on user talk pages, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IllaZilla&oldid=501761245

    Comments:



    This has been going on for weeks now. I say it's notable, they say it isn't and revert. Yadda, yadda, yadda. I tell them that they should just nominate it for deletion, but they keep reverting perhaps to make me look like an asshole and get blocked. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 11:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I m sorry if you misunderstood my last revert. I'll be starting a RFC about it and get an input which is "way better" then AfD. Also, I don't know if multiple editors can be held responsible for 3RR when they weren't even warned about violation nor where 1 of them near to it. (I made only 2 and IllaZilla 3). I m just about to start an RfC and saw my talk then came here. — TheSpecialUser (TSU) 14:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • And just started the RFC :) — TheSpecialUser (TSU) 15:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know no one violated the 3RR, but I simply don't understand why an RfC is needed instead of just nominating it for deletion if you don't consider it notable. It certainly is less annoying than just continuing to redirect and telling me I have to show how it's notable even though I feel like I have. 96.245.161.234 (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, that was me, forgot to log in. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 19:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No violation. It looks like there's an RfC going, so hopefully everyone interested can participate and sort out what's going on there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=502668986"