Previous version reverted to:[1] (this might be an odd scenario as the article keeps changing text as it goes.)
Diffs of the user's reverts
17:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 641451346 byZero Serenity (talk) 5th bold revert, I still say wait and hear no response. My next edit will be the {{Recentism}} tag."
17:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "4th revert, I take full responsibility. Please don't bring the Gamergame clusterf*ck mentality into this. I suggested to wait and your answer is clogging the statement with more recentism?"
17:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 641449508 byZero Serenity (talk) See my previous summaries. I'm at the edge of my third revert, please explain before reverting again."
17:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Feminist Frequency */ Shouldn't we wait until something comes out of this partnership before slapping it into Wikipedia? We can't just include every news or plan of the day.WP:RECENTISM"
User seems to be trying really hard to remove information announced yesterday while citing theRecentism essay. In this case, the information doesn't seem to qualify for said essay and since essay is not policy is rendered nil.Zero Serenity(talk -contributions)18:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I think my edit summaries speak for themselves. Tarc, Zero Serenity and NorthBySouthBaranof didn't address my multiple pledges for discussion and instead blindly reverted my attempt to improve the article without providing a reason. That's a clear symptom ofWP:OWN, and I know I was exceding the 3RR, but I was simply trying to find a peaceful solution.
Of course, I want nothing to do with the "gamergate clusterf*ck mentality" and atm I think I have nothing more to add about this incident.Heinerj (talk)18:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of24 hours Concerns about recentism are not an exemption for edit-warring. And I don't see this incident as a GG sanctions candidate.Acroterion(talk)18:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Result: Semiprotected one month. Neither party has used the talk page. If agreement is reached the semiprotection can be lifted. No data was offered to show thatUser:Spshu has played any role in this dispute. It is unclear why reverts from November 2014 have been offered as evidence. The first one is actually by a different IP.EdJohnston (talk)20:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
04:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 641526877 byBinksternet (talk) It's not her, it's her series. WP:UNDUE as no terms were released regarding FF's role let alone Sarkeesians"
04:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Feminist Frequency */ WP:UNDUE - not about Sarkeesian and barely about her video,"
User was politely asked to self-revert; they simplyreverted that request. The user has declined to engage in the talk page discussion related to the material in question and has simply engaged in stale revert-warring with no evidence they intend to stop. User is well aware of the 3RR.NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)04:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't read your drivel anymore, especially templates, so I didn't see any request. You may revert if you wish, all of them were different topics that you've edit warred for months and it wasn't my intention to edit war. It's off my watchlist and I am not disruptive. You've dragged my name through offsite bullshit so knock it off. --DHeyward (talk)05:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Your accusation about something "offsite" is patently false; please refrain from making unsupported and untrue personal attacks about other editors. I have never mentioned any other editor in any offsite context.NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)05:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Stop lying.[8]. BTW, I've reverted my edit above but you've never apologized for the above unfounded accusation. [insults redacted]. --DHeyward (talk)05:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Your accusation strongly suggested that I had mentioned you in some offsite forum, which is not true. More to the point, I'm not sure what that has to do with this issue. You have self-reverted, however, and I appreciate that.NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)05:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Warned@DHeyward: That self-revert is the only reason I'm not blocking you right now. Your annoyance at a two-month old comment does not excuse you from your obligation to use the talk page to discuss contentious edits. I'm protecting the page and I will consider sanctions if you continue to refuse to engage in discussion and/or berate other editors. If you have an issue with NorthBySouthBaranof's conduct or comments in regards to any GamerGate-related article, please take it toWikipedia:General_sanctions/Gamergate/Requests_for_enforcement.Gamaliel(talk)06:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
12:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Foreign Emperors in North-Western India (c. 538 BC – 750 AD) */Persians and seleuid dynasty never ruled indian states they were on other side of Hindu kush and it was alexander who ruled indian states ."
12:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit byMetalMan2015: Title of page must be in the first paragraph and be the first thing, until you convince people this page must be renamed this is how it should be set up. (TW)"
13:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit byMetalMan2015:WP:LEDE explicitly says the article title must be the subject of the first sentecne and until this article is officially moved that title is not just dominion. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
Ryulong is well-aware of 3RR rules per his extensive history. MetalMan2015 has been warned and as of this posting, has not made another edit.ChrisGualtieri (talk)14:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
He kept vandalizing and blanking sections and entire pages in a blink of an eye. He didn't care about his warnings.Snowager (talk)09:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
diff after deletions reverted, H1n1fluvirus reverted to delete again
diff after deletions reverted, Loveconquors reverted to delete again
diff made other changes and nominated for speedy delete (?)
dif blanked page and left note on page "This Wiki page is under review for deletion." and left first edit note: "malicious administrator / author posted multiple inaccuracies"
dif now with message left on article "WHO ARE YOU? Why are you targeting me? What have I possibly done to offend you? Do you realize that what you are posting about me includes a mix of inaccuracies"
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
warned about sockinghere (stopping doing that it seems)
warned about removing material without edit notes or discussinghere
asked user to talk on their Talk pagehere and on article Talk pagehere
Comments: Please block, and please block the other two probable sock accounts too. User seems really angry; unclear how to get them to start talking. This is a bummer. User will not talk.Jytdog (talk)02:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
@Mlpearc: if you look at the above report, they are not really "reverts" and they weren't made under 24 hours. Compare[30] with[31] 6 revisions in 4 days, and they are rather a few edits that were being removed. These 4 are perfectly 4 reverts and easier to review.OccultZone(Talk •Contributions •Log)01:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
They are controversial edits, and the editor that added them knows that. They need to be discussed. And days old edits don't count as "edit warring", the statute of limitations is over with.Koala15 (talk)05:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
"The editor that knows that" is me, and no the edits are not controversial. One is an additional genre which is attached with a reference that confirms the genre by the artist himself in an interview withBillboard magazine's website. Another is information on a bonus track that is exclusive to the vinyl edition of the album, which is attached with a reference to therecord label's merchandise website. There is a copy of the tracklist in the reference that confirms the change, yet just like the edit before the user above continues to delete this referenced information with no explanation. Additionally, the user continues to change the opening line of the article to claim the album is the "second studio album" and claiming the debut was "The Golden Alien" which was an independently released album with zero record label involvement, while the pageRiff Raff (rapper) already displays the difference between the studio albums and independent albums. He's also deleting a referenced excerpt from the page that mentions the music video released for the album's second single. But apparently music videos are controversial in his eyes. This user has continuously damaged theNeon Icon page and has given zero explanation for any of his repeated changes.Funkatastic (talk)18:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
An artists calling his album "EDM", does not mean that is the case. Your gonna need a better source than that. "The Golden Alien" was clearly his debut regardless of what he/anyone else says. And my bad, for deleting the music video sources, that was an accident.Koala15 (talk)20:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Result: No action against Koala15. Funkatastic has been blocked for edit warring on the same article per a separate 3RR report.EdJohnston (talk)03:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Comments:The above user's report, though true, doesn't include all of the details of the situation. For theNeon Icon page, I explained to the above useron his talk page that the edit war took place due to myself repairing constant damage (deleting referenced information with no causation) by another user, and I reported said user for doing so. As for the issue onTop Dawg Entertainment me and the other user have taken to thetalk page and are waiting for fellow users to get involved before making more changes.Funkatastic (talk)04:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
[33] "21:43, 8 January 2015 - 88.73.246.78 (talk) . . (22,781 bytes) (-63) . . (No it is discrimination for style of some peoples here go away with your nonsense templates) "
[34] "22:05, 8 January 2015 88.73.246.78 (talk) . . (22,781 bytes) (-63) . . (You are not efficient and paid by the BB) "
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[52] Attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page:[53]
Comments:I see that this editor is no stranger to this noticeboard, and was previously blocked for edit warring in another article[54] and warned three times[55][56][57] for edit warring in still others. His behavior in this article has been nothing short of maddening, removing amply sourced content and edit-warring over it. I would like to build this article into Good Article and perhaps even Feature Article status, as the source material is ample (including a biography of Myerson that I own) but it is impossible if this editor makes nonsensical edits such as[58] and edit wars over them. Myerson, the subject of a page one obit in the New York Times today, is a prominent person who is the subject oftwo three books, but her highly-trafficked article will remain stuck in "start" status if this tendentious conduct is not curbed.Coretheapple (talk)22:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC) The wall-o-text below bears me out.Coretheapple (talk)22:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Note that he has continued to edit war after the filing of this case, such as bythis edit insisting upon calling a housing project "Yiddish housing," andthis edit that, without discussion, removed an essential element of Myerson's story and placing it in incorrect chronological order in the wrong section.Coretheapple (talk)03:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Another revert since this report was made, edit summary "unexplained change by IP."[59], marked as a "good-faith edit." The fact that it was "unexplained" or "by an IP" is not a valid reason to violate 3RR.Coretheapple (talk)12:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Very one-sided report. Look at the reporting editor's edits and reversions. All he's been doing is adding back in wording he prefers. Wording, I might add, that is extremely close and only slightly paraphrased from the references he's added. For a better idea of both sides of the discussion (which I started at the article talk page, by the way), I will re-post what I've already said there (winkelvi used the same behaviour in the constitucion article [[61]]:
RE: Claim in article that she was a subject of anti-semitism and the Jewish community saw her MA win as a "seminal event". The attached reference says nothing of the kind. Anti-semitism is mentioned, but not in relation to Myerson's win. As well, nothing in the article gives proof that Jewish Americans felt her win was "seminal" nor that her win was affirmation. All the obit says is, "To many Jews...the title seemed an affirmation of some sort of acceptance in America." Note the words "To many Jews" and "seemed". Both qualify forWP:WEASEL status, and neither statements are supported by references. There are no sources attached to either statement that supports these obviously POV, emotional, and hyperbolic claims as being real or anything other than original research and personal opinion by the obit writer. What evidence do we have that the sponsors were actually anti-semitic? None. Both of these claims need to be removed as, even after a BLP article subject dies,WP:BLP policies still apply to the article for up to two years followig the article subject's death.
RE: The Ha'Eretz reference used to support "anti-semitism": it is also POV. This would need to be supported by a non-biased source. There is no specificity in the article that gives context, just the claim of anti-semitism. Further, in reading throughly both the obituary and the Ha'Eretz article, you have taken WAY too much of both, paraphrased only slightly, and are bordering on plagiarism andWP:COPYVIO with the prose and content you keep reverting back in from those articles. For reasons of borderline plagirism and copyvio along with the reasons per BLP guidelines stated above, I am also removing the content you keep putting back in.
RE: Comments about my editing at the article on Jimbo's page... Better to actually discuss than run to Jimbo's talk page and complain about, how did you put it? Oh, yeah: "a singularly difficult editor, which raises one of a number of issues I've seen discussed in the past year or so but never acted on. I.e., how to handle bad editors." (see here:[62]) That, in the vein ofWP:NPA andWP:AGF, along with your edit warring behavior, plagiarism and copyvios... Doesn't look to good at all.
RE: Editor's claim that I am using POV to edit the article... My feelings have nothing to do with the article content. In fact, I personally lean toward the anti-semitism claim. But my feelings have nothing to do with fact. The feelings of the writers have nothing to do with fact. Making claims of anti-semitism 70 years after he fact with no real evidence of actual anti-semitism is as stupid and POV as the claims of those saying anyone who didn't vote for Barack Obama did so because they are anti-Black. And yes, you did lift content from those articles. It's easy to see. So no, not ridiculous at all.
Personally, I'd rather see this worked out at the article talk page (which is why I started discussion there yesterday before the reporting editor, in fact). Consensus building is a good thing, even a dispute noticeboard would be fine with me if the other editor doesn't wish to actually discuss and work this out. In light of ignoring BLP guidelines, his copyvios, close-paraphrasing lifted from references, and need to see the article only reflect his content and wording version while trying to take the article single-handedly to FA or GA status (as he admits above), I don't guess he will be willing to discuss properly and work things out. Hence, his reason for coming here instead, I suppose. --WV ●✉✓23:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I find interesting the reporting editor keeps adding diffs to what he sees as edit warring on my part, but is failing to add diffs of his reverts to my edits. Personally, it seems to me that while we aren't agreeing with all of each others' edits, at this point we're just editing the article together and the article is improving little-by-little. That's cooperative editing, isn't it? --WV ●✉✓03:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I've not been reverting, you have. You're in excess of 3RR and have been working your will in the article almost entirely by edit warring. You used the revert tool to remove the word "cooperative" from the name of the housing project in which Myerson lived as a girl, without discussion, even though you were already well over 3RR[63]. Your edit made something accurate into something inaccurate, but I didn't revert. This edit[64], insisting upon calling that housing project a "Yiddish housing project," without discussion, even after it was objected to, is revert-warring, and was not reverted by myself. The article currently contains this extremely questionable language, as the result of the edit warring that you've been engaged in. That's how you've edit-warred over one minor aspect of the article! It is, as I said, maddening. If that is your idea of "cooperative editing" you are mistaken.Coretheapple (talk)03:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment: "Yiddish housing cooperative" is certainly not a standard term. It's the exact opposite, in fact. Although its meaning is clear to those who knowthis bit of NYC/Jewish history, it certainly does not belong in an encyclopedia. Frankly, the Bess Myerson article should merely link toShalom Aleichem Houses. (I remark that this is a redirect I just created, but if we haveAmalgamated Housing Cooperative, we can have this too.)
One of Winkelvi'sedit summaries justified a reversion on the grounds that obituaries should not be relied in except for basic facts. He was rebuked by admins in this forum a few months ago when justifying some of his edit warring inHelen Hooven Santmyer for just this kind of second-guessing about obituary contents. That what's asserted from the source is POV, as Winkelvi claims, is irrelevant. NPOV stands for "Neutral" POV, not "Non" POV. If it seems to be stated in a hyperbolic manner, then phrasing it as "Time said X" should be acceptable.Choor monster (talk)15:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Comments and adding link toBess Myerson talk page ([65]) I ask that anyone reading this report please look at the comments contained there. I have repeatedly tried to work with and reason with Coretheapple at the article talk page. His choice has been to make several personal attacks, even after I have asked him to stop doing so and instead talk only about bettering the article. Along with wrongly referring to himself and another editor trading talk page comments in the middle of the night over a span of an hour or so "consensus", his attacks and rude comments to me have been peppered with statements such as, "you have not read and/or comprehended"; "Please stop wasting everybody's time"; "we are adding relevant details, and this is clearly relevant, amply sourced, above dispute--except by you. Again, why are you wasting everybody's time"; "why are you wasting everybody's time"; "This discussion is utterly pointless...Please stop wasting people's time.". When I first went to Core's talk page early on when I was confused by one of his edit summaries, he answered rudely there as well: "And haven't you anything better to do than waste people's time? (page/section link here[66]). Yesterday, at Jimmy Wales' talk page he referred to me in the following manner: "a singularly difficult editor, which raises one of a number of issues I've seen discussed in the past year or so but never acted on. I.e., how to handle bad editors." (see diff:[67]). I have tried numerous times to work with Coretheapple yesterday, last night, today, on the article talk page. I've asked him to stop being rude and personally attacking me. I've even thanked him (via the "Send Thanks" option) for an edit today that was a particularly good addition. In spite of all this, Coretheapple chooses to remain tendentious, rude, angry, uncivil and non-collegial. All of this, in my opinion, shows that he not only refuses to work with me, but that this report isn't really about edit warring, it's about someone he has chosen to dislike editing an article he's taken an interest in. If it were the opposite, it stands to reason that he would have changed his tone hours ago based on the discussion I keep trying to have with him at the article talk page. --WV ●✉✓19:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Over the last 24 hours you've edit-warred with myself, an IP editor andUser:Alanscottwalker, carrying out a total of 10 reverts at last count, and your wall-o-text rants are totally irrelevant to your incessant edit-warring.Coretheapple (talk)22:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Winkelvi: It is not a personal attack to identify your lack of comprehension when you have clearly failed to comprehend a source. Your justification of "Yiddish housing cooperative" below is simply your own interpretative original research (and mistranslation to boot). This is just one example: you frequently skim sources, find a few key phrases, paraphrase them into something creatively incorrect, and then aggressively edit-war for your version. My stating this is not a personal attack. It's just a time-wasting, disruptive editing fact of life on WP.Choor monster (talk)16:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Someone who introduces the phrase "Yiddish housing cooperative" into WP, while having a history of reverting others for using "unencyclopedic" terminology (even when the contrary is documented) is not one to be taken seriously regarding who is or isn't "serious". I will leave the apportionment of blame to more experienced editors and admins, my comments stand on their own.Choor monster (talk)16:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I didn't introduce it, those creating the co-op did. The Shalom Aleichem Houses were originally called "Yiddish Cooperative Heimgesellschaft". In fact, they were called that when Myerson and her family lived there. Here's a great link to a CU discussion on the history[68] --WV ●✉✓16:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Your version, both in your edit and in your statement here, misrepresents the link. In general, official names outside of the actual article on the subject are almost always a distraction at best and more commonly are reader-hostile intrusions, and your habit of edit-warring to make sure they are present is very unhelpful.Choor monster (talk)16:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Think what want. You made an unfounded accusation, ridiculed what I added to the article, I showed where the historically correct content came from. If you want to continue with your assault on my character and ability to edit based on that, knock yourself out; It's doing you no favors. --WV ●✉✓17:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I commented on precisely what I commented, which was in regards to your precise language. Reading it as a comment on language you did not write or on other edits I didn't point out is just pointless thrashing. Also, edit-warring on youruser page, where you have decided to implicitly but rather baldfacedly criticize Coretheapple, in open, knowing violation ofWP:POLEMIC (you've done this trash before, and I referred you to it), is also pointless.Choor monster (talk)17:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
The only one edit warring on my User page is you,Choor monster . In fact, I see it as harassment. You don't have the right to edit the userspace of others. Doing it once is annoying. Doing it twice in edit warring-fashion is what's "pointless". Please stop the harassment. --WV ●✉✓17:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I wholly support Coretheapple. I personally think a ban is in order for Winkelvi. Just based upon my own dealings with user Winkelvi, the user is exceedingly disruptive and seems to be trying to pick edit wars with people. Even with me personally, he seems to be taking to vindictive, touchy and aggressive editing behaviors out of the clear blue sky. He seems to be spoiling for edit warring disputes and seems to be stalking to get that. I don't know what this user's problem is, but I really am in no mood for for his disruptive antics. Like others, I strongly think a ban and cooling off period is in order. We're not here to pick edit war fights and break rules. If you're here for that, take it elsewhere.AmericanDad86 (talk)04:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes I see that. One correction to my report: I see that the very final revert that I listed took place after the 24-hour 3RR period. However, I am leaving it in as it is an example of his continuing to edit-war. That has not abated. More recently, he reverted accurately sourced materialhere because he didn't believe what the LA Times reported in its obit. In fact it was accurate, though it could have been more precise in saying that she hosted the TV broadcast and not the pageant itself (Parks did). So the hair-trigger reverting has not ended.Coretheapple (talk)17:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Whilst I don't have a real opinion to most things here, your attempt at edit warring on Winkelvi's userpage,Choor monster, was inadvisable at best; in no way was there such a blatant violation ofWP:POLEMIC that you had the right to remove all of 15 characters from their userpage in the first place, let alone edit war over it and then drag them to ANI over it. Also, AN3 is not the place to hash out content disputes, or request people to be "banned"; it is the place where you make edit-warring cases, and that's it.Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)18:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
One month before—I provided links—the adminDrmies had reverted Winkelvi's user page for similar anonymous attacks on the grounds that it did violateWP:POLEMIC, after the issue was first raised onWP:ANI. I did not claim the new text was a "blatant" violation, merely at the same level as the previous instance.Choor monster (talk)20:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Which still does not justify the second revert, let alone the ANI thread. Also, I'm not remotely sure how you can justify that claim; the text that Drmies removeddid clearly toe the line of polemic at the very best, whereas what you removed wasn't even close.Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)20:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
The difference is that it's much shorter. Meanwhile it toes the critical line: it's an attack on another editor, the one who brought this very AN3 report in the first, which is why it's getting mentioned in this particular AN3 discussion.Choor monster (talk)20:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
No, the difference is that itwasn't a violation. "laundry list of reversion diffs" cannot remotely be interpreted on its own as polemic, and that is precisely what you were removing. Users are given quite a lot of freedom with what they can say on their userpages, and Winkelvi did not overstep that mark in that text. You had absolutelyno right to act as you did there (you had a right to a single objection, not to two reverts and ANI thread). I'm a little surprised no admin has come in here to deal with the 3RR complaint though, because it does need looking at due to the large amount of reverts.Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)21:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I quote fromWP:POLEMIC as to what is not allowed: "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." Winkelvi introduced the new material later the same day as this report. Whether it was done with this report in mind, or just happens to be a good-faith coincidence, is actually irrelevant, the timing means it "can be viewed as attacking other editors."Choor monster (talk)21:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
With specific twisting, almost anything can be viewed as attacking other editors. As I already stated, you had every right to object politely to Winkelvi's edit; you hadno right to revert them twice and then waltz off to ANI over a nothing edit. Besides, if something so simple Winkelvi did offends you this much, you shouldn't have their userpage on your watchlist, or be looking at it at all.Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)22:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
Bloodthirsty, nonstop vandal with sockpuppet IPs who kept pointlessly pretending to be admin, but is no admin at all. All he does is destroy lots of entertainment company articles by eliminating useful information and botching up the grammar, spelling and formatting, removing the owner/parent company lists on infoboxes because they think they apply to pages for defunct companies only (C'mon, just because a company like MGM has gone through ownership changes doesn't mean it's defunct), renaming the era headings of history sections to past company names without any explanation, and reverting any of the old revisions I'm trying to bring back. Heck, he want these pages to stay like that for life, but no, his edits are nothing but persistent vandalism, and he just never leaves the pages alone.Nathan3068alt (talk)02:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [this is the 4th trip to 3RR in a few days]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[74][75][76]
Comments: New simple report because the last one was turned into a longWP:IDONTHEARTHAT debate. Above is clear 4RR within Jan 8 times stamps. If you review the page history it becomes clear that no other editor may make anything but a minor contribution to the article. Signedzzz has 53% of the total edits =over 2400 edits himself on this article and is guarding it, even while he keeps out important info. Debate is over - please act.
Legacypac has been going on an extended and increasingly hysterical witch-hunt of me, and apparently won't be happy until I give up editing. This has only intensified recently after I was pinged to make acomment at AN/I about my dealings with him. In the thread above, he discovered that I had written the Boko Haram article, which was supposedly a huge concern due to my habit of "factual innaccuracy".
His evidence for my long campaign of deception was 4 facts which were supposedly missing from the article, which he could, of course, have simply added (except, only one of the facts was actually missing). I was unable to comment much on this, as 2 of the facts (which actually are in the article) concerned a subject which he has had me TBANned from. This lead him to add 2 warning banners at the top of the article to warn readers of POV and factual inaccuracy, and heopened a thread in article talk about the supposed dire condition of the article, listing the 4 missing facts and complaining in outraged tones of the fact that I had written the article.
The 1st diff (which occurred after the last 3) is me reverting Legacypac's edit to a different section of the article, which he added, with warning banners, after arguing all night on the thread above. As I explain in the thread above, it introduced a factual error and removed sourced material while claiming it was unsourced. I also removed his unexplained warning banners; I am not sure why he didn't mention that - perhaps because he is aware that they are unambiguous vandalism.
In this report,User:Legacypac again suggests that I have been disruptive by writing an article that needed to be written. He implies that I prevent others from editing it - this is absolute rubbish. And despite his repeated hysterical claims, he has yet to find a single factual inaccuracy.
The 2nd, 3rd & 4th diffs are the subject of the thread above. They are me reverting Lipsquid's edit and the edit of his sockpuppet.
I notice that Legacypac and Lipsquid have now "taken over" the article. Therefore I wont be contributing to it any more, perUser:EdJohnston's advice on my talk page, and I sincerely doubt I'll ever edit or disrupt or add factual innaccuracies to any other page either.zzz (talk)00:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Kindly stop with the false allegations and theWP:IDONTHEAR. When editors point out errors you act like you can't see what they are saying. A number of different editors are working to fix the article up and correct the inaccuracies and missing critical issues. 4 different editors have now assessed the part linked here you inserted 9 times and found it inappropriate for inclusion. Please start listening to what people are saying.Legacypac (talk)02:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
"False allegations". You've said I'm "hypocritical" and "pushing" a [pro-terrorist] "agenda", for example. So what "false allegations" are you referring to? Or is that just like my "factual inaccuracies", ie. there are none?
Since other editors have said they dont like the paragraph I haven't added it
Lipsquid used a sockpuppet: evidence is crystal clear in report above.
After I discovered his sockpuppet, you proceeded to:
added a NPOV tag for no reason.
added a Factual accuracy tag for no reason.
added andre-added false information: "'Boko'... is widely translated and thought to be a corruption of the English word 'book'" - no source says it means "book", all sources say it means "fake", including the 2 sources cited inline for the statement, one of whichspecifically says it doesn't mean book, and mocks Wikipedia for previously saying it means "book" - all of which I explained to you in my very last comment in the thread above, hoursbefore you added it back again
remove sourced info claiming it is "unsubstantiated content not found in the source" when it is in the source
You knew I'd revert these edits, so you could try yet again to get me sanctioned
yoouve now got the infobox claiming they are allied to al qaeda when the source in the article says they aren't since the middle of last year at least
you've changed the infobox to say "strength=9000" when the source says "up to", and the first para says "a few 100s to a few 1000s" (sourced)
you've been accusing me of factual errors left right and centre andyou haven't pointed out one single factual error. And before you say "WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT",point out a factual error
The fact Legacypac can do all that, and add a "multiple issues" tag is a complete joke. That's all I wanted to sayzzz (talk)12:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
The intro and every point in the multi-bullet post is incorrect. Further, either Signedzzz can't count or understand what a revert looks like. He continues to be disruptive and not get theWP:POINT as shown here. Now can we get an Admin to close this? Either block him completely or do a topic ban.Legacypac (talk)18:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Which part ofWP:3RRNO do you think your reverts fall under?
Unbelievably,User:Legacypac has "archived" ie. closed all the discussions about content on theTalk:Boko Haram that just started in the last day or two, preventing ie.CENSORING any opposing views. And this is the user that sticks a POV tag on the article and repeatedly and without cause accuses me of pushing an agenda.zzz (talk)18:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Boko_Haram#POV_Issues, where you "justify" or "explain" your POV tag which I reverted and you re-reverted, is of course nothing more than one long polemicWP:PA against me. "55% of the total edits here are by one editor". You incorrectly and irrelevantly list 4 facts supposedly not in the article. Then you merely state without explanation or justification that I have a [pro-terrorism] "agenda that does not meet NPOV". I will have to seek sanctions for this. I didn't write this article to get publicly slandered.zzz (talk)19:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I could ask questions or for diffs, but he would just blather on with more nonsense allegations and never answer the questions or justify them.Legacypac (talk)19:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
@Legacypac Do you want to name one of these mystery "nonsense allegations"? Or do you just want to delete the (unjustified) tags and corresponding attack thread?zzz (talk)22:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I should not feed the trolls, but the source in question -Paul Newman- lists 11 other sources that say Boko also means book as in "Book Learning" or "Western Learning".http://www.megatchad.net/publications/Newman-2013-Etymology-of-Hausa-boko.pdf Which also leads to the most reliably sourced definition of Boko Haram. "Western learning is forbidden". I have not seen any reliable sources that say the translation of Boko haram means - "fake is forbidden". There are 11 points of view available in the link. Only one says definitively that Boko does not mean book, but even 1 against 11 is a fair point to show contention, so I changed the article to take a more neutral stance on the definition of Boko. I am sure this will still lead us spinning off into a new, new, new tangent even though I again am trying to address the concerns you have made in good faith. Having an edit war over insisting that "Boko means book" absolutely must be deleted because you find it in one source while ignoring all other previous sourcesthat say it does mean book, is pretty much the opposite of what an editor should do. You should show both sides, remain neutral and let readers draw their own conclusion whenever there is a discrepancy between sources, which is what I am trying to do in my latest edit.Lipsquid (talk)21:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
"There are various pieces of evidence that support the view that boko not onlynever meant book, but could not have come from book. No one factor is crucial in and of itself, but they add up to the same conclusion, namely that the resemblance between boko and book is purely coincidental and of no historical linguistic import." (page 8, my added emphasis).
Or just read the first paragraph, the "Abstract", which means "what the entire reference is all about".
Could an administrator please look at the ref and try to explain it to the user? I really don't know if he'swp:trolling or just lacking inwp:competence. Either way, I'm positive he won't listen to me.zzz (talk)22:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Blocked – Signedzzz is blocked four days for long-term edit warring atBoko Haram, as well as a 3RR violation on 8 January. The closure of this complaint was delayed due to discussions which took place both here and in a report above. It appeared for a while that Signedzzzwas agreeing to take a break from the article, buthe made this controversial edit on 10 January which removes article tags, showing that he has not stopped editing atBoko Haram. This block can be lifted if Signedzzz will accept a topic ban from Islamic extremism andBoko Haram, which will apply everywhere on Wikipedia on articles, talk pages and noticeboards. Signedzzz is already banned from editing onWP:GS/SCW per an earlier complaint.EdJohnston (talk)03:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleting information because he feels the source is not reliable. Fails to improve the alleged grammar problems or provide more references. He argues that TMZ is not a valid reference. Who has made that decision?— Precedingunsigned comment added by213.7.149.151 (talk)15:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Have just filed a page protection request because of the reporting IP here[78]. Protection request reads as follows: Persistent vandalism – Sensitive BLP due to recent sexual abuse allegations against article subject. IP reverting back in bad content, content not referenced by reliable sources, using bogus reasons for reversions. Likely same sockpuppet IP fromConstitucion, Chile article - that article had to be protected, as well, and the IP has a vendetta against me. IP is using proxies. --WV ●✉✓15:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Allegations are completely unjustified,user:winkelvi is rigourously edit warring to secure his revisions. He is not making an attempt to improve the article.user:winkelvi is currently banned from editing theBess Myerson article due to edit warring.
Might interest some that User:Winkelvi was reported just a couple days ago byUser:Coretheapple for similar edit warring 3RR violations, as shown here[80]. Additionally, Winkelvi has engaged in similar behaviors toward myselfAmericanDad86 (talk)20:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Based on this[81] and then this[82], I'm now wondering if the reporting IP and edit warring IP atStephen Collins (see here[83],[84],[85],[86]) isn't actuallyUser:AmericanDad86 behaving in a sockpuppet fashion in order to fulfill his current agenda: seeking to have me blocked (or "banned" as he erroneously stated in the report here and at the report he referenced above and commented on yesterday). --WV ●✉✓20:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Big Note: See thenew clean report below - this has gotten quite complex.
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:Following on this report that was just archived with no action:[87] where he went 4RR in one day. He also warnedUser:Lipsquid over edit warring as detailed there.
[88] Signedzzz adds text again soon after the last 3RR report, and after I assessed the merits of the issue as an uninvolved editor and posted my assessment. This was a little over 24 hours after the last of the previous round of edit warring not involving me.
[89] IP changed with the note (Editor changed in violation of discussion per BRD)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[97]
Comments:While at but not over 3RR in 24 hours right now, this is a long term edit warring situation against consensus and he is at his 8th revert now. He seems to see this as apersonal attack (see edit summary), which it is not. He just will not accept consensus that the info is misleading/not relevant in this particular article and shows no sign of stopping.
I commendUser:Lipsquid for taking this dispute toDispute Resolution, where I have summarised the dispute the best I can. (Unfortunately, someone has since muddied the waters by adding irrelevant stuff about the infobox, so I doubt anyone will bother with it, now.) I thought the issue had been resolved after talk page discussionhere, which followed extensive discussion on his talk page. I honestly believe his only reason for deleting the sourced, accurate, unbiased material is that he thinks it implies that the APC/ACF support Boko Haram, which is no reason to delete it (Boko Haram are widely assumed to have infiltrated the army and government, so it's hardly beyond the realms of possibility that they have supported them to some unknown degree).
I am perfectly willing to discuss the wisdom of keeping or changing any part of the article. Such a discussion should revolve around rational arguments likethis one did. However in this case, the idea that material should be deleted is fundamentally flawed (the background section is already a bit short), and the user needs to listen to arguments presented and either present counter-arguments or just edit something else instead.
User:Legacypac's use of the word 'consensus' here is nonsensical. He has simply agreed with Lipsquid that it looks like the group may support Boko Haram - which is not a reason to delete it, as I have pointed out on the talk page. I'm still waiting for a reply to this point.zzz (talk)03:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
My assessment as posted was that Lipsquid's conclusion that it should be removed matched my assessment that inclusion implied the APC support Boko Haram, as clearly Signedzzz understands. The information is just tangentially related to the article topic, which is a heck of an argument to remove. If the background section is too short (and it should be short) find something relevant in the vast amount of info published on the group. Consensus is now 3:1. Why should SignedzzzWP:OWN the article and tell other editors to "just edit somewhere else"? Lipsquid told him that a topic ban would be sought if he continued with the edit warring, before or during the activity in this report.Legacypac (talk)03:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
"The main political interest group representing the interests of northern Nigeria" isby definition the background of Boko Haram (and no argument has been presented to suggest otherwise, obviously). I just checked the talk page, and its still just you and Lipsquid, and still no attempt to reply to me using rational argument. That is not "consensus" (last time I checked, "A process of decision-making that seeks widespread agreement among group members").zzz (talk)03:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
"(Boko Haram are widely assumed to have infiltrated the army and government, so it's hardly beyond the realms of possibility that they have supported them to some unknown degree)."It is entirely possible that penguins in Antarctica have supported Boko Haram, to some unknown degree, but unless I have a reliable source that states "Penguins support Boko Haram", quotes about penguins belong on the penguins page and not on the Boko Haram page. I don't know anything about the APC nor do I really even care about the APC. What I do know is that a statement that infers a relationship between some very bad people and another group, needs to be reliably sourced and not based on your personal belief "that it is not beyond the realm of possibility". As a very casual editor of Wikipedia, I am kind of stunned that it is this painful to fix something that seems to be fairly straight forwardLipsquid (talk)03:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Source says APC does not support BK. Inclusion of the background of BK and a quote from them is misleading and unwarrented. End of discussion. Will Signedzzz drop trying to reinsert this or will he not?Legacypac (talk)03:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
The source says "While not intending to suggest herein"... that they support BH. Legacypac, you need to pay attention to what you are reading. The sourcedoes not say"APC does not support BK". How many times are you going to repeat that it does?zzz (talk)03:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
And, again, if the accurate and unbiased info about the APC makes you think they may have supported BH, that is not a reason to delete it. Are you going to come up with a counter argument to this, or just continue ignoring it?zzz (talk)04:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
The source is about the background of Boko Haram. I believe it is a good source for the background section of the article. What is so hard to understand about that?zzz (talk)04:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Exactly, the source does not say they support BH is says the opposite. So the answer is NO you will not stop with your edit warring and you continue here to argue. Topic ban is in order to go with the ISIL topic ban earned for the same style of editing.Legacypac (talk)04:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
The article doesn't say they support BH. It just says what the source does. The source doesnt say they support BH either. And nor does it say they don't. It's reallynot that complicated!zzz (talk)04:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I have just spent the best part of a hugely unproductive and unpleasant week's editing trying to get some sense out of you. And, it turns out, that is the best you can do?zzz (talk)04:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Wrap Up Please: Time for admin action. This user isWP:NOTHERE except to argue and beat up other editors. For background
First report by Signedzzz against Lipsquid on this exact wordingno violation found
Second report by Legacypac against both Signedzzz and Lipsquid on exact same wordingnot closed So this is the third trip to 3RR for Signedzzz on the exact same wording.
Earlier Signedzzz reports Lipsquid at 3RRboth warned
The IP in the diff at the top is clearly a sock of Lipsquid. I don't believe either of these editors believes a word of what they are saying.zzz (talk)05:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
(IP and Lipsquid both edited Talk:Buddhist influences on Christianity, Boko Haram, and very little else. And both have the same "superior" tone.)zzz (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Also, IP contacted me at my talk page, thanking me for deleting the paragraph that Lipsquid had edit-warred to force me to delete, several weeks ago. No doubt IP/Lipsquid thought that was hilarious, and made him feel enormously superior.zzz (talk)05:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Ignoring the personal attacks. I am a very casual editor of Wikipedia. I don't usually log in before using Wikipedia and reverted the change without being logged in which was an error, I had no intent to hide and I also stopped after my second revert, for which I did log in, to avoid the 3RR even though my first revert was not logged in. Actions speak to intent, my intention was not to sockpuppet a bunch of changes. I made a change not logged in, I made a second revert while logged in and I stopped after my second revert logged in or not to follow 3RR, even though the prejudicial PoV-based information remains on the page today.Lipsquid (talk)16:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment: In my opinionUser:Signedzzz should be blocked unless he agrees to wait for consensus before once again adding the paragraph about theArewa People's Congress to theBoko Haram article. He has done so seven times already, from January 2 through 8th. So far as I can tell nobody supports this addition, and the reason to include it in the Boko Haram article is truly unclear. It looks like he will keep reinserting this material forever unless admins do something.EdJohnston (talk)06:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
The reason is, the source about the background of Boko Haram thinks it's important. "Consensus" consists of Legacypac and Lipsquid/IP, versus me. If admins think the source is wrong/misleading, I'll leave it - obviously. Hopefully someone will explain why they think the source is wrong, first.zzz (talk)06:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Nobody complained about the addition until Lipsquid did. And no one doesn't support it except him (and Legacypac, of course).zzz (talk)06:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
EdJohnston, What you seem to be saying is, anything Legacypac (who has been trying to get me banned+blocked for a while now) + one other person (such as sockmaster Lipsquid) agree to delete gets deleted, regardless of being sourced, etc. No arguments required. That's pretty depressing, then.zzz (talk)06:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Ed said the reason for the addition was unclear. I explained the reason was that the source thought it was important. I would like to know his response to that. There really aren't that many good sources about the background of Boko Haram (less than a handful, that I know of).zzz (talk)06:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Found 2438 edits by User:Signedzzz onBoko Haram (55.31% of the total edits made to the page) The other847 distinct authors made the rest of the edits. I suspected OWN, and based on these stats, the rest of the article should be checked line by line against the sources.Legacypac (talk)06:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
That's because I'm well-known for falsifying information, presumably. And it's ok for Legacypac to say that about me, why?zzz (talk)07:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm still wondering if EdJohnston thinks the source is good enough for the background section of the article, by the way.zzz (talk)07:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Although I've raised factual errors right here (which he refuses to answer) and on the talk page Signedzzz has alreadyreverted my first edit and removed the POV and accuracy tags. This is going nowhere good. That takes him to 4RR today on the article.Legacypac (talk)10:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Legacypac Changing the article to say 'boko' means 'book' is a factual error (the source in the article says it does not). Do you have a source that says it does mean 'book'? Or did you just pointlessly insert a factual error? And your edit summary "revise unsubstantiated content not found in the source" is factually wrong. There is no "unsubstantiated content not found in the source".zzz (talk)11:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
My new text said "boko... originally meaning 'fake' but has come to mean[1] and is widely translated and thought to be a corruption of the English word 'book' " For support see pages 2-5 of the preexisting source[2]Legacypac (talk)11:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Legacypac, Source no.1 does not say "'boko'... has come to mean book". It doesn't even mention 'book'. It says 'boko' means 'fake'. As does every other RS.
Source no.2 says "It is commonly asserted that boko is derived from the English word book. This widespread view is incorrect." It then goes on to mention a few embarrassing instances of this incorrect translation, beginning with "often unreliable"(sic) Wikipedia before I started editing. The Boko Haram article, and other articles I have edited, arenot unreliable. I would like them to remain that way.zzz (talk)12:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Result: Article semiprotected three months. Nationalist warfare in Eastern Europe falls underWP:ARBEE, but it is not always worthwhile to officially notify IPs of the discretionary sanctions.EdJohnston (talk)03:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
02:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC) "Hi, haters! Why don't you remove Barbie & Ken Awards from all Korean celebrities who win it but keep remove it from this page?"
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[113]
Comments: Cut-and-dried. User was told what the proper procedure is, but obviously preferred to edit war instead.BMK (talk)21:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Never mind, user was blocked by Mike Rosoft for "Disruption-only account, spamming, probable sockpuppet of ceiling fan vandal".BMK (talk)21:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Not only is the user SLBedit edit-warring in the specified article, he also repeatedly spams my talk page with invalid warning templates (three (!) for thesame case by now), while silently removingmy warning towardshim from his own talk page. I actually thought that a compromise had been reached over that particular article in early December, but now -more than a month later- he reverted it back as if nothing had ever happened.Wackelkopp (talk)20:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. But please keepWP:CIVIL in mind and use the talkpage to discuss any issues you disagree on.Bjelleklang -talk23:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
19:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 641905583 bySLBedit (talk) Your proficiency in English seems to be rather dismal, as that's not what the sentence implies."
No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. But please keepWP:CIVIL in mind and use the talkpage to discuss any issues you disagree on.Bjelleklang -talk23:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
This editor has been edit-warring over a period of days, though he/she has not broke the three-revert rule. He/she has continued to edit war after being asked to stop edit-warring. He/she has not contributed to the article tank page, even though one of his/her edit summaries demand that other users use the talk page.
Yeah I did this and I'm sure my edits are 100% correct and I provided couple of references. This edit war will not end ifToddy1 andEdward321 continues to generating violence and reverting my edits on Uzbeks page. If you really pay attention to references that I provided please protect this page fromPan Iranian violence. If you believe that I'm wrong, then please block me! O.Turani(talk)17:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Comments:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments: This IP user is insistent of changing the opening paragraph from "WMGM-TV, virtual channel 40 (UHF digital channel 36) is a television station licensed to Wildwood, New Jersey" to "WMGM-TV, virtual channel 40 (UHF digital channel 36) is a Soul of the South affiliate licensed to Wildwood, New Jersey." First off opening paragraphs of broadcast stations always start with W*** is a television station or radio station following by its channel/frequency location and city of license then a description of the station including its affiliation is there is any. It has already been established in the InfoBox and in the article that WMGM is a Soul of the South affiliate so it is completely redundant and unnecessary to include this in the opening paragraph plus everytime their edits are reverted they re-revert it in violation of the 3RR. They have been warning via Twinkle on their talkpage by myself and another user.TheGoofyGolfer (talk)21:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Seriously? You are so insistent on this precise order of wording that you resort to, first, edit-warring, and now a 3RR report, to enforce it?
Exactly where is it written that the lede graf of broadcast station articles must follow the exact formula you cite, that the affiliation absolutely must follow the city of license? Here are a few counterexamples - each is a copy of the first sentence in its respective article:
KFMB-TV, virtual and VHF digital channel 8, is a CBS-affiliated television station located in San Diego, California, United States. KGTV, channel 10, is an ABC-affiliated television station located in San Diego, California. KSWB-TV, virtual channel 69 (UHF digital channel 19), is a Fox-affiliated television station located in San Diego, California, United States. KABC-TV, channel 7, is an ABC owned-and-operated television station located in Los Angeles, California, United States. KCBS-TV, virtual channel 2 (UHF digital channel 43), is a CBS owned-and-operated television station located in Los Angeles, California, United States. KCAL-TV, channel 9, is an independent television station located in Los Angeles, California, USA.
These by the way were the first six station articles I checked. That's right, six for six with nothing formatted the way you claim it is "always" done.
Nor is it any huge sin for "redundant" information to appear in the lede. In fact, the lede is not supposed to contain anything thatisn't elsewhere in the article!
In short, the IP's edit is factually correct, was constructed properly wrt grammar and spelling, was made ingood faith, violates no policies or guidelines or even essays that I'm aware of, and does not harm the article in the slightest. And it provides information that readers who only read the lede would otherwise miss.
The only way I can see that the IP's edit is "disruptive", as youaccuse on the IP's talk page, is that it's not to your stylistic taste. Is that really worth an edit war on your part?
Oh... yes, the IP is edit-warring, butso are you. Did you know that you don't have to break 3RR to be edit-warring? Truth. You might want to reviewWP:EDITWAR.WP:OWN as well.
You also misused warning templates to the IP(you used two level 1's, then went right to level 4).Correction: You used a second level 1 after there already was a level 1 from someone else, then went right to level 4, "Final warning". Yet somehow you failed to notify the IP of this discussion. See above where it says (in large red letters) "You must notify any user you report."?
No violation – Only three reverts are listed above. It takes four reverts to violateWP:3RR. And you didn't notify the IP that you were reporting them here.EdJohnston (talk)03:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see "warning" links above
Comments: I wasn't quick enough with a templated warning but they have been told in non-template terms. There are numerous problems with this person's edits but they are not listening. Copyvio is obviously a serious one but practically everything they are introducing to the article is not in fact in the sources presented. They seem to be claiming that they have the knowledge directly from family members but, of course, that will not do. You'll see a shedload of changes by me earlier today where I tried to untangle the useful additions from those that were inappropriate. You will also note that they have had past warnings about copyright issues on their talk page. -Sitush (talk)13:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Anticline has now responded on their talk (at last) withthis. It looks like a case of someone who really doesn't understand our policies rather than someone who is just being pig-headed about things. -Sitush (talk)18:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Not a 3RR violation, as the two pairs of edits count for one revert each per the pink box at WP:3RR. Let me check back after reading the "this" link, checking the copyright issues, etc.Nyttend (talk)19:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
After looking at the substance, I agree with all you've said,Sitush. I'll leave him an explanatory message of a couple of paragraphs, looking quickly at edit-warring, original research, and COI.Nyttend (talk)19:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Message left. My first inclination was to block for edit-warring, but your "this" link quickly dispelled that idea.Nyttend (talk)20:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Previous version reverted to:diff for revert #1 and 5 "venture capitalist Tim Draper, one of the largest bitcoin holders after winning an auction of 30,000 bitcoins" and citation removed.diff for reverts 2-4 "In December 2014 professor Williams said: "The probability of success is low, but if it does hit, the reward will be very large." and the citation removed.
Diffs of the user's reverts:
diff1 "venture capitalist Tim Draper, one of the largest bitcoin holders after winning an auction of 30,000 bitcoins" and citation removed again.
diff2 "In December 2014 professor Williams said: "The probability of success is low, but if it does hit, the reward will be very large." and the citation removed again.
diff3 "In December 2014 professor Williams said: "The probability of success is low, but if it does hit, the reward will be very large." and the citation removed again.
diff4 "In December 2014 professor Williams said: "The probability of success is low, but if it does hit, the reward will be very large." and the citation removed again.
diff5 Reverted after notified of this case. "venture capitalist Tim Draper, one of the largest bitcoin holders after winning an auction of 30,000 bitcoins" and citation removed again.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:diff User is aware of the 3RR rule from previous warningsdiff
Fleetham was reported recently for similar edit warring on January 1, 2015.link
Comments: Fleetham removed sourced material in the Previous versions. Two editors replaced the sourced claims and Fleetham removed them again by reverting. Revert one removed "venture capitalistTim Draper, one of the largest bitcoin holders after winning an auction of 30,000 bitcoins" and citation. Fleetham reverted by removing the line "In December 2014 professor Williams said: "The probability of success is low, but if it does hit, the reward will be very large." and the citation from reverts 2-4.AlbinoFerret22:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The cited material seemed quite out of sorts with the sections. In context, the Williams quote is nonsensical, and part of a small sub-section on VC activity (~10 sentences) included three or four sentences on the father of one of the founders of a VC entity focused on funding bitcoin start ups. These edits should be easily recognizable as innocuous and helpful. The fact that they weren't makes me question the motives of the editor who reported me; as I am the sole editor of thebitcoin page who doesn't consistently contribute pro-bitcoin content, I am often singled out for "edit warring" and "not following rules precisely."Fleetham (talk)23:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Bjelleklang The reverts are partials on the first two, and not marked as something undone in history. But they are reverts to remove the lines from the comments above. The first one removed a different thing than the last three, but all remove a line that was removed in the Previous versions. if you search for the removed lines in the previous version, you will see they were removed, then removed again. The lines were replaced in between the removals by me and another editor.AlbinoFerret23:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I just found out he reverted again, after being notified of this section, being warned, and commenting here. #5 removes the same material as the previous version and #1.AlbinoFerret00:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
"The first two diffs does not look like reverts" - the first two reverts are not justified as reverts, but they both are reverts.
Fleetham wrote: "I am the sole editor of the bitcoin page who doesn't consistently contribute pro-bitcoin content" - I think that his confidence that all editors except for himconsistently contribute pro-bitcoin content is worth underlining and noting. As far as I am concerned, that is a sad finding, but the one that needs to be taken seriously.Ladislav Mecir (talk)00:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
ThankingAlbinoFerret to come here, because I have gotten tired of it. Agree with him andLadislav. Fleetham is not editing by the rules. His cries for being the only one thats not adding pro bitcoin content are sorry to say, sad and not true- check the facts. I repeat as at the last NPOV board: check my contributions. The worst to me, is the energy it takes for upkeep of the site. The undoing, Fleetham's periodic destruction of painstaking work of humbly assembled facts and references, that is simply not respected/acknowledged by admins as what it is: vandalism, POV pushing is disheartening. Oh admins, who repeatedly have not wanted to get involved, bless your hearts and have a good one.--Wuerzele (talk)07:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
The user keeps reverting the article for some unknown reason and it is borderline disruptive at this point. The article itself has sourced the introductory section but the user feels obliged to change it to his personal wishes rather than the sources themselves.Hawaiifive0 (talk)13:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
There is no justification for Hawaiifive0's edits. The biased nature of their changes make it perfectly justifiable for me and others to revert them, especially since their contributions involve adding a spurious{{good article}} tag to the page. The article is not a Good Article and has never been reviewed as such. –PeeJay13:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[137]
Comments:
I asked about excessive details at Talk: Turkey I had no intention of attack but Dr.K. started to complain and threatened with block. I answered his threats and said: "Please don't be offended, and avoid offending anybody who is bringing in new ideas. " He reverted my answer three times, and i'm reporting it now. --Kafkasmurat (talk)21:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
[139] "(Undid revision 641923476 by Harout72 (talk))"
[140] "(Undid revision 641950694 by Harout72 (talk))"
[141] "(Undid revision 641955854 by Harout72 (talk) He's a lead artist)"
Comments:
I didn't start a discussion on the talk-page, but I offered the IP to do so in theedit summary. I did also warn the IP on his/her talk of incorrect changes he/she was making. The edit warring continued after each warning. Also, note that the IP has made the same changes at1.000.000 (song) andSaxobeats.--Harout72 (talk)09:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Harout72, you have made four reverts while the IP you are reporting has only three. Per the usual rules you are the person who should be blocked. Are you willing to promise to stop warring on this article (and wait for consensus) to avoid sanctions?EdJohnston (talk)21:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm only trying to keep the articles mentioned above correct based on what the cover states on the single,featuring. As you can see the IP keeps reverting without trying to have a discussion, there is no way to reach a consensus with someone who keeps hitting therevert button. I'm not going to edit anymore the articles, but if you could keep an eye on the IP and his/her reverts, it would help the articles stay clear of misinformation. I had no intention of making it look like as though I was edit-warring.--Harout72 (talk)22:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Result: Filer warned. It is up to editor consensus how the word 'featuring' should be interpreted. If the two performers sing a duet on the record, you can understand that some people would draw their own conclusions. Consider opening a discussion on an article talk page. You can useWP:Dispute resolution if you and the IP can't come to an agreement.EdJohnston (talk)00:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
09:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC) IP sock 46.115.15.229 "("only" is not neutral, i said ! neither is your "pseudostate". and you cannot even answer that question asked twice. because you dont know an answer, there is no answer. "only" is not neutral, period. (btw, this article's language is biased in general))"
08:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC) IP sock 46.115.15.229 "(How many recognitions does it take for the "only" to be dropped ?!? Is Abkhazia recognized by "four countries" or "four countries only", Kosovo by "108" or "108 only", Montenegro by "176" or "176 only" ?!?)"
07:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC) IP sock 46.115.15.219 " ("recognized by Turkey" is the fact, "recognized by Turkey only" is the fact plus e/valuation. That's not neutral language. How many recognitions does it take for the "only" to be dropped ? 10 ? 100 ? and who is it up to to determine ?!?)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
I intervened when I first noticed it. You had reverted 4 times in a short period of time. I presumed an Admin would notice that it takes more than 1 to make an edit war.Cathar66 (talk)04:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
The fact that you decided to report me (and only me) despite this edit war was started by another user is suspicious (at least). Don't you think?--Ashurbanippal (talk)04:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I must say, I noticed thatUser:Ashurbanippal has a pattern of "shoot before talk" (edit warring before trying and discussing the situation). I don't think it comes from an evil place, but I do think he needs to be explained the usage for talk page and why it is important to have a discussion before jumping to revert wars.
I think that the information provided byUser:VanEman is very important and useful for the article. I mean, how can the official position of the establishment and public opinions not be important?Mr. Sort It Out2 (talk)03:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Note. After an egregious edit war by Ashurbanippal and VanEman, the parties have apparently resolved the issue. Both editors have been alerted toWP:ARBPIA's discretionary sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk)08:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Per theWP:3RR page "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." None of the last three diffs undid another editors actions, they are in different places and used different words. To show a revert you need a previous version to match, please show previous versions that match my edits. Secondly I started the discussion on the section, while Yobol reverted three times,diff1diff2diff3 and after he was warned he had made three reverts,diff he posted the WikiProject Medicine talk page, not to get people to comment, but to get my last edit removed,diff, " needs to be either removed or qualified because a minority of the authors have previously received money or honoraria from various pharmaceutical companies" Which you diddiff4 calling it a "good faih edit". That can be considered canvassing. The last edit would then be credited to him, he has now reverted 4 times.AlbinoFerret06:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Your comment strings together removals over days and weeks. All of which have talk page section dealing with removing that questionable material. That section you like to link to on AN/I also has a very large section on you. What you have in those diff's is content disputes.AlbinoFerret07:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Comments: The edit warring has been with several editors, and Abductive has refused to answer point-blank questions while making accusations of racism.Curly Turkey¡gobble!07:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Note.@Curly Turkey: It's hard enough evaluating an edit warring report on an article that has as much activity as this one. You make it that much harder by not listing the diffs in chronological order. If another admin wants to figure this out, that's up to them. I suggest you rearrange them.--Bbb23 (talk)09:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
My apologies. They are in reverse chronologial order. It's late and I personally don't like them listed that way, but there's nothing that requires you to do it earliest to latest. I'll take another look.--Bbb23 (talk)09:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't know they were supposed to be ordered that way---I assumed they should be in the order they show up in the edit history list. I've re-ordered them.Curly Turkey¡gobble!09:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of48 hours. I hate looking at the activity on articles like this one, but the user edit warred over two days and also breachedWP:3RR in series of four reverts and even in another series where the fourth revert was just outside the 24-hour window (gaming).--Bbb23 (talk)09:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
or the revert was made because the editor cared about the content of the article and didn't notice exactly what time it was, whatever 'appened to AGF.Sayerslle (talk)13:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[185] (note,User:BB-PB is my alternate account for use on my mobile phone)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussionhere - the editor in question posted on the talk page and then continued to edit-war on the article and across others, despite the fact that I made my objection to his edits quite clear.
Comments:
As I noted above, the editor in question has repeatedly tried to insert problematic edits to several related articles, despite my making my objections known to him. I am well aware that he has not violatedWP:3RR, but his attitude toward editing certainly violates the prohibition on edit-warring and the suggestion that when one isbold and has been reverted, to discuss rather than continue to revert.Parsecboy (talk)13:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure there's any need to respond to this. There is no 3rr even close to involved; he is the one reverting the pages in violation of (at least) 4 other editors' consensus to maintain the pages' GA status and shepherd them through the DYK process;I was the one who went to the talk pages and linked him to the existing (months old) discussion he is ignoring and reverting; I did so on every talk page of each article in question; he ignored and failed to respond to the concerns on each article in question; he performed wholesale reverts on the basis of no policy in violation of policies that I noted I was upholding (including the reintroduction of typos such as missing commas and removal of helpful links such as the otherwise unknown Italian China station).
Is it necessary to block Parsec? Could an adult just hold his hand, explain howAGF works, and walk him through how to avoidOWNERSHIP issues? (Ido appreciate his work creating the pages, but his reply at theDYK discussion is something like a textbook example.) — LlywelynII13:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Please read what I wrote. Specifically the line"I am well aware that he has not violatedWP:3RR, but his attitude toward editing certainly violates the prohibition on edit-warring".
As for me failing to respond to posts on the article talk pages, I'd like to ask you whattheseare. It seems you think it sufficient to post the same boilerplate messages on article talk pages and then ignore subsequent posts.
As for consensus, I again ask where is this imaginary consensus? I certainly see no discussions on the relevant talk pages.
Re: your "response", apart from it having followed half of the edits above, I'm curious what you response you feltthis orthis would have merited, since you obviously didn't bother to read what I had written or followed the link provided there to the (months long) consensus at the DYK discussion. I mean, yes, that consensus obviously wouldn't have changed your mind as it still hasn't, but it's not me that is edit warring at that point. — LlywelynII13:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion at DYK is irrelevant - you apparently have your own rules over there that do no exist in the rest of Wikipedia. As I have said several times now, this kind of nonsense it the reason I abandoned DYK in the first place - thanks for confirming my decision. As for discussion threads, I would have preferred you respond to any of the threads onthis page, which you ignored. As for edit-warring, perhaps you don't understand what the phrase means. Please read the first sentence ofWP:Editwar, keeping in mind that posting boilerplate messages on article talk pages and then ignoring subsequent posts while continuing to try to force your changes through looks a lot like trying togame the system (which you will note is prohibited in the second paragraph of the policy on edit-warring).Parsecboy (talk)14:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion at DYK is an existing months-long discussion of 4+ editors agreeing to the changes in question and overriding your personal preference about the pages' content (which is not to say a different consensus couldn't be put together on the talk pages.) You made no attempt whatsoever at discussion but simply posted a threat; I would have checked the talk pages before a second or third revert of any page, but that's not what was going on here. I was just introducing the changes to the series of pages per the existing discussion.
But continue lecturing me about errors I didn't introduce, typos you can't notice, grammar that "do no exist", and violations of the spirit of the rules: You are absolutely a helpful editor who creates generally good pages, so it's good to be able to see how unpleasant your attitude has become now that you've started this process over yourOWNERSHIP issues and failure to notice aCONSENSUS. I'll wait for a third-party review, though, lestI start to become as unpleasant. — LlywelynII14:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, let's look at timestamps. I replied to your boilerplate commentshere at 12:01-02 UTC. Your next revert came nearly an hour laterat 12:57 UTC. And you're telling me you read my responses first? Or that I made no attempt to discuss anything?
Again, DYK is irrelevant - you can have all the rules you want about prohibiting citations in the lead (which contradicts thefar wider consensus thatWP:LEADCITE represents) or whatever else, but they do not exist outside the confines of DYK.
Lol,I'm the unpleasant one? Your first post here you suggested I need an adult to hold my hand. If I became unpleasant, it's because I got tired of dealing with your condescension (which is compounded by the fact that you don't have a clue what you're talking about) and unwillingness to discuss your changes.Parsecboy (talk)15:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
As all of your points are addressed above, I'll just note that youbegan unpleasant, apparently through confusing a consensus of editors with "irrelevan[ce]" and differing editors' attempts to introduce that consensus with "reverting" and doing so over multiple pages as "edit warring". You acknowledge that I was nowhere near 3rr but then drag me through this process for not having deferred to you instead of that consensus ininitial edits to the pages. You're quite right that your attitude andOWNERSHIPare making me more unpleasant, though, so I will wait for someone to come through and process this. — LlywelynII00:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
So you don't refute that your revert camean hour after my talk page posts and that you ignored said posts? Glad we're clear on that. As for my alleged unpleasantness, what exactly is hostile about a simple statement that your editsadded redundant and or duplicative information or a simple request totake your concerns to the talk page? I see you're still not getting it. Let me spell it out.Edit-warring isnot limited only to 3RR violations. Youhave edit-warred on the articles. The question of how the situation will be resolved is the only thing in question.Parsecboy (talk)01:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
To go through the process though:A) the first edit was not a revert at all andB), while I will stop editing the class of ships while this is arbitrated, I'll note that I was just trying to introduce the consensus from the DYK articles across a series of pages in good faith (not edit warring) andC) 3rr applies to a single page, not a series of them. No problem with avoiding these pages, though, if a consensus of dispassionate editors here feel the DYK kids were mistaken.D) The only edits I certainlydo wish to contest are the reinclusion of a typo and removal of the links to Italy's China station on theLombardia page since those are not a matter of policy or style differences but simple improvements. — LlywelynII13:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
The first edit was a revert of Oceanh's edit - edit warring does not differentiate between who introduced the changes, nor does it matter than the changes were not identical.
I would have appreciated if you had stopped editing the articles as soon as the dispute had arisen - we would not have had to come here if that had been the case. You would do well to reviewWP:BRD.
Please stop talking about 3rr - no one likes a red herring.
I'll talk about the policy this page is designed to enforce since I haven't violated it and the only 'spirit' being violated arose from your increasingly impossible-to-justifyOWNERSHIP issues. You've paid so little attention to the edits involved, youstill think I restored Oceanh's mention of 7 ships of the class although I did nothing of the kind on any page. With regard to the 'introduction' of errors, your grammar has similarly failed you, although (mea culpa) my memory failed me: the missing period you restored is in the lead of theUmbria page. — LlywelynII14:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Please advise where I have stated that you, specificallyLlywelyn, introduced the error thatCalabria was a member of this class of ships. I don't think it'sme who hasn't been reading what has been said (and it's worth notingthis thread andthis boilerplate copy).
As for grammar, it is not within the scope of this page (or my job) to instruct you on basic rules of grammar. That you do not see your errors is not evidence that they do not exist.Parsecboy (talk)14:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Please do not splice threaded comments. And please do not make false accusations and then back out of them when someone called your bluff. The fact is, youdid introduce errorslike this one. Again, that you are not aware of them does not mean they do not exist.Parsecboy (talk)15:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Leaving aside that is one edit and not anything in the plural,it's not wrong. As established downpage, the ships were all builtand launched prior to 1900, which simply makes it another error you reintroduced through your reverts. (If it was common practice for the Italian Navy to launch ships that were not yet built, I do apologize and can only pleadGF. I assumed the original editor had confused "built" with "commissioned".) — LlywelynII00:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
This is what drives me up the wall - you haveno idea what you're talking about, yet you have the gall to insist on being correct. Every ship that has been built in the last several hundred years has been launched incomplete. The remainingfitting out work frequently lasts several years. You ask for an assumption of good faith - that would be much easier to grantif you would listen to people who know what the hell they're talking about.Parsecboy (talk)01:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
12:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC) "Why should I have to take it to the talk page, when two editors thinks actress should be on there, and two that should not. It does not have to be my responsibility."
11:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 642145780 byCalvin999 (talk) Mariah Carey had 9 films, only two cameo appearances. That's different. Discuss on talk page."
Actually I only edit warred with two, when the third editor came in, I dropped a discussion on the talk page, so far, no responses. --Joseph Prasad (talk)13:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
No, I mean that you have made three reverts on the same article in less than 24 hours. In less than 24 minutes, in fact. You are not allowed to do this. You shouldn't just remove stuff from an article. If you have two editors reverting you saying not to do something, you don't keep on actively doing it. If you feel something is wrong, you drop a message on the talk pagefirst, not when three editors have collectively reverted you five times. You could be potentially blocked from editing because you of your three reverts. — ₳aron20:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I was reverted four times, collectively, not five. The other one was SNUGGUMS. I understood, and I have posted a discussion on talk page. --Joseph Prasad (talk)00:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
[187] After a few days of no reply I proceeded to edit citingWP:BRD, the user immediately surfaced and undid my edit claiming that my reply was insufficient (in the edit summary), all this without replying in the talk-page. A day later I proceeded to undo his edit for failing to engage in the discussion, hoping that this might push him to reply.
[188] The user briefly announced a unilateral compromise in the talk-page which he immediately materialized (without actually addressing my reply). I then replied to his announcement on the talk-page and waited nearly a week for him to reply, to no avail. I once again proceeded to edit citingWP:BRD.
[189] Without replying in the talk-page the user reverted my BRD-edit claiming that I have yet to gather consensus for an edit, and furthermore, the user manually undid a similar BRD-edit I had made pertaining to a dispute with another editor.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[191]
Comments: I have opened a discussion in the article's talk-page and the user replied actively at first however he/she has stopped replying in favor of reverting my attempts atWP:BRD without actually contributing to the discussion that I have invited him to return to several times. The one time he did reply after that point was to briefly announce his compromise, which he reached unilaterally, and then proceeded to immediately materialize it before receiving any input. His edits are often slightly botched and ill-conceived. Turnopoems (talk)01:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Ykantor- My reply
user:Turnopoems complain is a bit bizarre, as it seems that he is the one who violates the rules.
-Turnopoems has undone many more that any other editor in this section. He does not pay attention to the consensus view and he forcibly push his opinion. He repeated it in the other argument which is discussed in the same talk page section. So it seems to be a typical behavior.
- During his other argument, heundone the article again, while falsely claiming that "The issue has been settled on talk". The other editordeleted again Turnopoems text while telling him that "No settlement and no consensus yet". Does it suit the "good faith" editing?
- Turnopoems repeatedly decides that a couple of days waiting for the response is too much, so he returns to his habit - undoing the other editor. e.g."No reply in "Talk"-section","No reply ".
- Turnopoems tend to ignore or to evasively reply to my questions in the talk page, . So a discussion with him is rather fruitless. e.g. My question (at 22 DEC and 26 DEC):""misleading as it implies that Cairo was a strategic target". Is this claim a wp:or ? ". He have not replied to this question yet.
- Turnopoems idea of a discussion is that he stands for his initial text and does not want to modify it. I tried to compromise with him and significantly modified my text towards his attitude, although it is not the best text I wish to have, since I wanted to finish with this exhaustive arguement.Ykantor (talk)20:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Turnopoems - Rebuttal
First things first, you need to acclimatize yourself to the guidelines of this website. I have not violated any rules in regard toWP:EW, all my edits have been fully compliant and the reason why I undid the revert done by the other editor was for two reasons:
- He was indefinitely banned for sockpuppetry (reverting his contribution is exempted fromWP:EW).
- He did not partake in the open discussion which aims to resolve the matter and thus his contribution, much like yours, are nothing but a disruption.
The other reason why I have continuously undone your edits is because a) you refuse to partake in the discussion and thus your position becomes moot and b) a longer period of time has elapsed and I chose to adhere toWP:BRD:
Bold editing is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. No editor is more welcome to make a positive contribution than you are. When in doubt, edit! Similarly,if you advance a potential edit on the article's talk page, and no response is received after a reasonable amount of time, go ahead and make your edit. Sometimes other editors are busy, or nobody is watching the article. An edit will either get the attention of interested editors, or you will simply improve the article—either is a good outcome.
I mentioned that the issue had been settled in the edit summary because the other editor asked for a source in order for me to include the text, which I included in my edit. He then reverted my edit, despite the lack of consensus, claiming that my source was insufficient based on a far-fetched, personal interpretation of the text in the source.
Wikipedia's content is not dictated by majority-rule, it doesn't matter if ten editors are fighting against one lone opinion as long as it's sufficiently backed by sources and/or complies with guidelines established by the community. Your responsibility is to discuss the matter to reach consensus, if you're unable to do that for whatever personal reasons (i.e. to avoid "exhaustive arguments") then please refrain from disrupting the work of people who are trying to make serious contributions on Wikipedia. If you felt that the argument has reached a dead-end then you have several tools at your disposal for dispute resolution, instead you chose to engage in edit warring.
Your compromise was unilateral and falls short of actually achieving anything in regard to my complaints, and IEXPLICITLY explained why I disapproved of it in the talk page where I offered a counter-proposal which you completely disregarded only to continue reverting my attempts atbold editing (without replying on the talk-page).You are the exhibiting the exact behavior defined inWP:OWN, constantly reverting edits under the pretexts of lack of consensus while forgetting that this is a two-way street. Where is your consensus for indiscriminately reverting my edits?Turnopoems (talk)14:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Result: TheYom Kippur War is fully protected two months. This protection may be lifted if consensus is reached on Talk.User:Ykantor andUser:Turnopoems seem to be engaged in a slow revert war. On the talk page there is a lack of clear proposals for article wording that people could support or oppose. The talk discussion has been running since 1 December but it is extremely boring and goes lazily in circles.An RfC was opened on 27 December but it's so vaguely-worded it's unlikely to be helpful. Anyone who is interested in this issue would be performing a service if they could nudge the participants to clarify the options and vote on them. The dispute is about just a few words in the infobox.EdJohnston (talk)04:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
User has a couple of trolls seeking to censor info from a RS more like. spa anon ips and editors with one edit ffs - what conflict of interest? - censor the RS all you like - whats your interest in it anyhow? maybe you have the conflict of interest etc .Sayerslle (talk)16:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Result: Semiprotected two weeks. Sayerslle did not violate 3RR but the IP did. This is a biographical article on a controversial person.EdJohnston (talk)18:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The IP made an overly detailed edit. I reverted, requesting that the edit be taken to talk. I was reverted again. I warned the user on T/P as to their attitude. I also reverted, urgently requesting that they take to talk. The IP reverted me again, claiming that the rationale of my revert must be discussed on talk first before I revert. An absurd reversal of B.R.D. I request some eyes here. CheersIrondome (talk)04:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I am assuming it is a competency issue. Can you not grasp the idea of gaining consensus and discussion? I will say no more.Irondome (talk)04:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
You are on the behave that my addendum to the article is not okish, but you haven't represent any valid argumentation. Instead of removing it, represent some factuals in the Talk that the profound ground trials is not legitimate as the Wa Pruef 1 estiamtes. Thanks79.141.163.7 (talk)04:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
My ed summaries were detailed. You refused to go to talk. I am quite happy to discuss. Everyone knows my record on discussion here. Now go to talk and we can discuss and pull the plug on this dreary tussle. Then we can free up boardspace here for less trivial matters. Ok?Irondome (talk)04:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
The revert still continues on the article, even the case was meant to find a consensus in the Talk page. NowGunbirddriver just reverted it again1 within 24 hours, afterIrondome recent reverts:123 Could please some taking action of these arbitary revert warring? Thanks79.141.163.7 (talk)13:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
float
Blocked indefinitely by Materialscientist; I'd say this should be left open for now however, as there may be more to this than meets the eye (I should add I saw this linked onIRC). He seems to be saying he's the owner of an anti-smoking website in the UK.—Soap—02:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[203]
Please see previous reports, no matter how I and others have tried user keeps reverting legitimate citations and factual evidence, seems to think they 'own' page., user insists an international co production is 'American', has reverted a total of 27 times:
No, you weren't admin please check page history, you've proceeded to revert four times in one hour, not only that you altered the page chronology for some reason. User Drovethrughosts proceeded to produce '100 proof evidence' (NOR anyone?) that the show according to a pirated video tape (which no-one has seen) was 'American' while I edited in actual citations from tv industry experts referring to the UK's collaboration with Universal on Battlestar Galactica (2004) from Google Books. If administration care to check talk history they will find other editors who both edited the article (reverted immediately) and discussed adding the fact that the UK co-funded the show so no, it isn't just me, although I have been the one most recently having to put up with this crazy page 'ownership'.Twobells (talk)17:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The only editor edit warring here is Twobells. He is determined to force in an edit, based on one iffy and one unreliable source that he feels somehow makes the American TV series Battlestar Galactica a US/UK (with UK primacy) television production, despite the only foundation for his claim is limited contributed funding of the mini-series and first season by the UK network Sky1 (along with the Canadian network Space, which doesn't seem to interest him); the principle source of funding was NBC Universal, which produced and funded the mini-series and five season series for the SciFi/Syfy Network. His whole argument hangs on the mistaken notion that the country of the source of funding, not the country of the production company is somehow the country of origin, in opposition to the standard established by consensus at Project:Television. Worse, he's filed one prior case here against myself and Drovethrughosts (the latter case was malformed and mistakenly removed by the closing admin, but wasn't worth pursuing), and is back at it today, but persists in edit warring and restarting the edit war, oblivious to the face he is the instigator of these edit wars. He is long past editing to improve the article. This has become some sort of cause (possibly based on anti-American sentiment, if a conversation with another editor and some past editing patterns are to be believed) he has taken up, not only on this article, but on a couple others as well, and he's determined to continue to edit war, engage inpointy editing (see some recent edits) and harassment via these noticeboards to have his way. Meanwhile, he has no foundation for his changes, despite his loud claims of so-called "legitimate" sources, both of which have been challenged as unreliable. His engagement on the show's talk page is not designed to reach consensus, but rather to dominate the discourse and tell other editors what is and is not correct, yet demonstrates a significant lack of understanding of (or blindness to) a range of policies he claims are being "violated." It seems abundantly apparent to me that he is not editing in good faith, but rather to win at any costs. --Drmargi (talk)16:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Admin, please see both history and the previous 3RR report[204] regarding editorDrmargi to see who is doing the reverting and edit warring, the sources are completely legitimate cited from Google Books. I have no interest in UK being 'primary' whatsoever, I have no idea where that came from. Editor Drmargi is confused as to how production credits work and was himself previously reported for reverting 7 edits in 24 hours (see 3RR archive 367). To be honest both users Dmargi and DroveThrughosts seem to think they 'own' the article and jointly rush to attack anyone who might edit the article which is completely unacceptable and what is worse userDrmargi states that in editing the article that flies in the face of their wishes it is somehowpointy editing which is frankly ludicrous in that they have a nice comfy albeit incorrect article and nothing is going to change that. He goes on to suggest that there seems to be some sort of 'anti-americanism' going on which is frankly ludicrous and reflects a increasing sense of desperation considering I am Anglo-American. I have tried to explain how co-production articles work citing examples such asGravity andGuardians of the Galaxy but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. In closing, the article reached consensus (when you calculate the numbers) on adding the UK contribution back In December; however neither editor seems to accept that consensus as it flies in the face of their beliefs pertaining to this tv show.Twobells (talk)16:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
"To be honest both users Dmargi and DroveThrughosts seem to think they 'own' the article and jointly rush to attack anyone who might edit the article which is completely unacceptable." — how are our edits any different than yours? You were the one to start the edit war twice now. And no, it's not "anyone", it's justyou making these edits.Drovethrughosts (talk)17:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
"The article reached consensus (when you calculate the numbers)" — what are you talking about? You refer to things that have never happened, the article did not read consensus and what numbers did you calculate? I'm sorry, but I think copyright laws which define country of origin is a better source than someone on Google Books.Drovethrughosts (talk)17:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
This article was the subject of aprevious 3RR complaint on 30 December. The result was 5 days of full protection. It appears thatUser:Twobells has a theory about the nationality of this TV show: "it is the country that funds a production that defines ownership", but he seems to be the only one who believes this. Unless Twobells will make a promise to accept consensus from now on, a block may be necessary. Twobells hasfive previous blocks. Both Drmargi and Twobells would strengthen their case if they would give links to the policies they mention about TV shows and to the prior 3RRs.EdJohnston (talk)17:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't know, Ed. I can throw in a few links when I have time, but any admin doing due diligence will have to look at the article edit history and talk page, which paints a vivid picture of what's gone on. I think the real issues underlying the edit war are Twobells's disruptive editing, constant restarting of this edit war, abuse of this noticeboard, and lack of willingness to work toward consensus. He stirs the pot, goes away for a while, apparently until he thinks things have calmed down, and then is back again, starting all over. Meanwhile, a quick glance at his edit history shows he's not editing anywhere else. Make of it what you will. I'm heartily weary of the whole situation.Drmargi (talk)20:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Result: Twobells is blocked 48 hours.User:Drovethrughosts is warned for edit warring. This dispute happened before, on 30 December. That time the 3RR was closed with protection. It seems that Twobells just isn't going to stop, no matter what anyone says. Twobells doesn't appear to have any support from other editors but he keeps reverting anyway.EdJohnston (talk)02:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
19:30, 13 January 2015 (→Armed Forces: The entire section is relevant to Charleston, just as other information in the write-up. Apparently, you do not like the fact the military built the economy of Charleston - "Joint Base Charleston".)
18:21, 13 January 2015 (→Armed Forces: "Join Base Charleston" and the military section belongs in the Charleston write up. Otherwise, the entire section on Charleston will need to be re-written, on ALL topics. People want to know about the AREA; Remember, "Joint Base CHAR")
18:59, 8 January 2015 (→Armed Forces: Yo are wrong, otherwise, the entire write up of Charleston would need to exlcude all aspects of Metro Charleston, i.e. "Port of Charleston", etc. Look at the military emblem "Joint Base Charleston.")
03:33, 7 January 2015 (→Armed Forces: Each City is listed. It is called "Joint Base Charleston", not "Joint Base North Charleston" for a reason. Section is correct.)
An IP and this user appear to have been in an edit war for a while before I came across it today (note: I am not the IP, and welcome any checkuser to verify if there is any question on this whatsoever).
And again, yet the other editor was not warned for violations. The only reason I'm always on here is because every time there is an edit war like this, I am always the ONLY one who get reported, even though others edit war as well. --Joseph Prasad (talk)02:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The user was reverting a perfectly legit and cited update because he did find the source (Republic Records' official website) to appear "official" enough, and stated that Big Machine is her label. I informed him that Republic handled her releases to pop radio (and is listed onRepublic Records as one of their artists) but he continued reverting. I then took the matter to his talk page to discuss but he was non-compliant.Afireinside27 (talk)03:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Sardanaphalus has a habit of reinstating his edits, even if they are reverted for good reason; In this case, half the section of the linked template became unreadable, so I reverted. But he takes it personally, so I warned him to not to do so, or I would report him to 3RR, even after one revert. Minutes later, he does it anyway. By doing so, he is damaging legibility of templates (not only this one). He has been instructed be several editors (and admins) to show restraint andtest his edits before implementing them, but it falls on deaf ears.-- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}}23:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Comments:
No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. --slakr\ talk /04:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[209]
Comments: User is dead-set on adding sloppy/unsourced/duplicative content to the lead ofTrump Plaza Hotel and Casino despite having been repeatedly reverted by multiple users. User was blocked asUser:Hey111184 yesterday for 24 hours, then came right back after the block expired with this new account. Shows no indication of having even seen talk page warnings.Toohool (talk)01:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
I'm adding only one IP for the title, but as you can see, it's probably an user with multiple IPs. Due to his edits, he might have a Portuguese profile, but didn't create an English one. Also based on those edits, I believe he's Brazilian and that his edits are only based on the fact that he is a supporter of Atlético Mineiro. Tried to reason with the person via article's edit summary and reached each IP with a talk page for discussion as well. I used to deal with it only via edit summary, but now I decided to follow the standard path and report cases instead of just reverting them in a loop at the articles. ThanksGsfelipe94 (talk)16:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Result: Semiprotected both listed articles for two months. Edit warring by IP-hopper. I struck out one IP from the header because he didn't edit either of the listed articles.EdJohnston (talk)02:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of24 hours Concerns about recentism are not an exemption for edit-warring. And I don't see this incident as a GG sanctions candidate.Acroterion(talk)18:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Warned@DHeyward: That self-revert is the only reason I'm not blocking you right now. Your annoyance at a two-month old comment does not excuse you from your obligation to use the talk page to discuss contentious edits. I'm protecting the page and I will consider sanctions if you continue to refuse to engage in discussion and/or berate other editors. If you have an issue with NorthBySouthBaranof's conduct or comments in regards to any GamerGate-related article, please take it toWikipedia:General_sanctions/Gamergate/Requests_for_enforcement.Gamaliel(talk)06:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. But please keepWP:CIVIL in mind and use the talkpage to discuss any issues you disagree on.Bjelleklang -talk23:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Page protected (semi) for two weeks and Knisfo blocked for one month based on report at SPI.--Bbb23 (talk)08:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Note. After an egregious edit war by Ashurbanippal and VanEman, the parties have apparently resolved the issue. Both editors have been alerted toWP:ARBPIA's discretionary sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk)08:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Resolved