Appears to be a single use account that only has made these three edits as of today's posting: (contribs)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Warned on Aug 4, per above link. Clearly this user is aware of policy as two of my reversions were reverted by this anon IP as "vandalism" (or some spelling variant thereof)
Comments:
This is a slow but persistent problem and appropriate warnings seem to be dong no good. This anon IP, with its first and only edits, is repeatedly inserting a link to My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom via a redirect from "Brony fandom" to horse worship article. Not only is the link off topic (to a toy) but also is disrespectful when the topic is the cultural and religions practices of ancient people. I know this individual hasn't made 4 reverts in 24 hours yet, but they clearly need a cluebat and my warning was blown off, as the anon IP's edit summaries make abundantly clear. Maybe just semi-protect for now with an admin warning to this user will do. Montanabw(talk)00:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Declined. The IP has made only three edits to Wikipedia, all to this article, two on August 4 and one on August 6. You issued him a templated vandalism warning. You didn't talk to him. You didn't warn him about edit warring. You didn't even notify him of this discussion, which is required. I can't block him for this, and there's no justification for semi-protecting the article. The only thing I could do would be to warn him as I agree that his edits are disruptive (silly is probably a better descriptor). He may be incompetent, judging not only the by the edits but by the edit summaries, or he may be a kid. But I'm not going to warn him until you've taken the trouble to talk to him first. Then you can you say you were "blown off" with some legitimacy. Sorry if my comments are a bit harsh, but you're a seasoned and productive editor, so I'm holding you to a higher standard. Besides, aren't you biased? If I recall, you're a horse person. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
@Bbb23: note above. This obviously is no newbie, I have no time to interact with obvious trolls. I explained the revert in my edit summaries, the IP reverted both with comments about "vandalism," I have no time for this nonsense. I'm a content editor, not a cop. This IP clearly just wants attention and I'm not in the mood to give it to him or her. If I have to take this little jerk to ANI and waste time on a link to My Little Pony, the wiki is truly doomed. Sorry if my comments are a bit harsh, but use your mop and at least warn. Montanabw(talk)21:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Your analysis of the IP may be right on all counts, but so what? We have lots of new editors, both IPs and registered accounts, that are disruptive, many far worse than this one, and they still receive warnings and are generally not blocked unless after repeated warnings, they persist. You warned him already. He hasn't reverted your change on the article. Other than his stupid remark here, what else has he done? I'd warn him if I thought it was needed, but I don't. If you want to waste your time taking him to ANI, despite your protests that you don't have time for this, that's entirely up to you. Maybe you'll find a more sympathetic administrator there. I hear that all sort of administrators congregate there.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
The user committed edit warring and disruptive editings without showing any intention on establishing communications in talkpage Gunkartatalk15:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Note. I don't know much about the merits of the content dispute (other than it's making me hungry), but you (Gunkarta) seem to be edit-warring just as much as Lee788.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
Smallbones is grossly past 3RR at this point, but is claiming exemption due to what he claims of the editor being a banned editor. However, I contest this as the editor has not been proven as of yet to be a banned editor, and that the SPI is currently ongoing here; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mr._2001 | It should be given that the editor is suspected of being a banned user by SmallBones and that in the absence of a confirmed WP:SPI or even a WP:DUCK blog, we must assume the presumption of innocence rather than the presumption of guilt. When I asked SmallBones on his talk page why he thought this editor was a banned user, they responded in behaviorial observations but no distinct, proven link, only suspicion; this does not meet the distinction for 3RR exemption in my eyes. Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 05:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
@Tutelary: Why would people want to support the human rights of a banned user by allowing them to continue posting at Jimbo's talk? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to debate the ethical mystery of proving that a sock is really a sock—just look at the contribs, observe they are an SPA trying to stir muck, and ignore per WP:DENY. Johnuniq (talk) 07:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
@Johnuniq:That statement is incredibly disturbing. Human rights are something that all humans are entitled to, regardless of if they are a 'banned editor' or not. I sincerely hope that you misspoke, because otherwise you are a total ass. Reventtalk08:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no human right to post on a talkpage; editing Wikipedia is neither a human right nor a legal one. Let's move on, nothing to see here. Yunshui雲水08:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I did not say that it is a human right... the assertion that it is one is patently ridiculous. I was specifically replying to what was said, which was offensive, especially since I have recently seen attempts on both Wikipedia and the wikimedia mailing list to deny people what are legitimate rights (specifically copyright, the right to privacy, and the right to not be harassed) protected by policy and law on the basis of them being blocked on English Wikipedia. Reventtalk09:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps my parody was not expressed with sufficient clarity—anyone can see from the user's contribs that they are an SPA on a mission to throw mud at Jimbo, and the editors who are insisting that the comments be restored presumably have a reason for their enthusiasm. People occasionally claim that someone's "rights" are infringed when their comments are removed—a misguided claim that I was attempting to parody. Of course the SPA (who is doing exactly what a known banned user has been doing for months) will not have any kind of rights infringed by Wikipedia. To finish my off-topic explanation, an important point is that the banned user puts Jimbo in a difficult position because if Jimbo declares them persona non grata they get the thrill of announcing their elevated status to the world on the attack site which they run. IMHO it's time for the community to do the dirty work of implementing WP:DENY, a task that will be made difficult by those who pointlessly insist that we prove an SPA with a handful of edits on Jimbo's talk is a sock (the banned user has been doing this for years and can easily evade SPI). Johnuniq (talk) 10:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll just say that nobody claims that Spotting ToU is not a banned user. Certainly not Spotting ToU, who essentially admits it at least twice [22] "Well, if you want to be a prick about thoughtful discussion of important issues, you really leave a banned user no choice but to quietly create a new account and insert outlandish falsehoods, craftily referenced to "sources", in many Wikipedia articles, thus bringing down the reputation of Wikipedia. - Spotting ToU (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)" and the thread [23], where Jimbo also identifies him as the banned "Mr. 2001." His edit history show him to be an SPA with "in depth knowledge" of Wikipedia rules, who is simply harassing Jimbo.
In the thread currently at issue User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 169#Mr. 2001, there is nobody who says that Spotting ToU is not the banned editor known as Mr. 2001. Rather they argue that he is making nice edits, therefore he should be allowed. That argument is specifically disallowed at WP:BMB.
Note that WP:BANREVERT says "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert."
There is a claim made by Tarc that a banned editor must first go through an SPI investigation before being reverted. Unfortunately for his argument the policy quoted above simply does not say that. It would be rather silly to have a policy that require us to go through an SPI every time an obvious banned user creates a new sock. Note that Spotting ToU claims to have a "IPv6 address" which I take is an evasive technique, on his "blog" the admitted Mr. 2001 claims to use every evasive technique in the book.
As noted earlier, by me, Mr. Wales has engaged with this person directly as recently as a week ago; User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 169#Mr. 2001. If he wanted this user off his page, then he would've reverted rather than engaged, no? Smallbones is simple simply wrong in multiple aspects of this situation; one, that banned editors MUST be reverted on sight. No. They CAN, and sometimes they SHOULD, but it is not a black & white situation. I asked Jimbo for clarification on this, but he appears to have more pressing matters to attend to. In the meantime, there is no call or reason to remove the comments of an editor who is a) not banned, blocked, or otherwise sanctioned and b) is an editor who Jimbo himself has conversed with on his talk page. That is the second part of smallbones' wrongness; acting unilaterally to punish an editor who at this moment has done nothing wrong. I will not post here again, since a snoted earlier, wp:ew is not the venue for this to continue in. Tarc (talk) 12:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Take it to AN/I Since the report on Tarc, who was warring it back, was declined with an instruction to take it to AN/I, I'm going to do the same here. Smallbones at least has a claim to an exemption, even if they are wrong. Monty84513:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Edits by and on behalf of banned editorsWP:REVERTBAN
"Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
[[24]] is the relevant policy warning regarding posts on behalf of a banned user. Tarc WP:POINTy addition is based on the failed premise that a request for more accurate information was a failed spi. [[25]] Shows the updated case with behavioral evidence and we are waiting for User:DeltaQuad to update as no obvious sleepers are found. Now that I had the correct master's name it screams DUCK, as well as their addmitted intimate familiarirty with the SPI process [[26]] as well as never denying that they are blocked. Tarc's actions are detrimental to the WP:EVADE policy and also is outside of 3rr. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Lol, what comedy; note that Mr. Bucket conveniently fails to report his buddy Smallbones, who was warned for his transgressions. I "warred" to restore damage from is essentially disruptive, petty behavior on the part of Bucket and Smallbones. They have convinced themselves that User:Spotting ToU is a new account of a banned editor, but so far the no accounts have been linked nor any sleepers identified at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mr. 2001. Until that SPI closes with a positive finding, "Spotting ToU" is just another user voicing his/her concerns on Jimbo's talkpage. We simply cannot allow this sort of wiki-vigilanteism to run roughshod over people's rights here. There's also the fact that even if it is indeed a banned user, other users have a certain amount of latitude regarding banned users posting to their talk pages in other guises. Here is an example of Jimbo conversing with the user in question last week. No reverts, just Jimbo conversing with this person whom he also believes (but offered no proof at the time) may be a banned editor. I asked at User talk:Jimbo_Wales#Mr. 2001 if he wishes this user's comments to stand, but as of yet he has not had time to respond. So, absent the clear wishes of the talk page owner, absent any violation of WP:NPA, and absent a positive SPI finding or even a WP:DUCK block (which at this point no admin has chosen to do), there is no reason whatsoever for editors not named Jimbo Wales to remove "Spotting ToU"'s posts. Tarc (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't give you the right to ginore policy, the policy states as you are aware "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." The bolding is mine but User:Smallbones is well within policy to revert you. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I am well within policy to revert both him and you, as you 2 are engaged in harassment of Spotting ToU, by removing comments in violation of WP:TPO. I'm not the only one who finds fault in your actions, as Tutelary has reverted your inappropriate deletions as well. Tarc (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I find fault with it primarily being because he/she is not a confirmed banned editor, and as a result of the process of verifying that he/she is a banned editor, their contributions should stay. I contested SmallBone's and Hell in a Bucket's constant reversions because the SPI case is ongoing, rather than resolved totally in favor. Tutelary (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
That had been precisely my point all along. Seeing how Jimbo has interacted with this person before, there is no pressing emergency that requires the removal of this user's comments, unless Jimbo changes his mind and chooses to do so himself. These guys are acting like wiki versions of Judge Dredd (the Stallone version), and that just ain't right. I'm not terribly concerned with whether or not it was technically in the Wikipedia sense "right" for me to repeatedly reverse Smallbones' and Bucket's TPO transgressions; it was "right" in the ethical sense, and IMO that is of more value to me. If 3RR is in the way of securing a person wishing to communicate with Jimbo on his own talk page, then consider it ignored here. Tarc (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
And that's why we are here you don't care, [[27]] you're basically admitting you know they are a sockpuppet too, you don't have an opinion basically you are admitting to trolling for no reason. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Er, no, I said no such thing, and no person with a reasonable amount of competence could infer that I said such a thing. If I need to restate my position,. I can; there is no finding of fact that the user "Spotting ToU" is a banned user; there is evidence, there is suspicion, but no ruling as of yet. Until that time, it is simply another user who may post where they please. in accordance with this project's guidelines & policies. You don't get to pounce on every person who posts something at Jimbo's page or elsewhere who vaguely espouses a point that is critical of the project, or a point that is vaguely in like with something posted at an off-wiki site. It may be a banned person, it may be a new interested party or friend, it may be Jimbo himself (wouldn't that really bake your noodle?). The point is, you don't know, and you yourself are not empowered (thank god) with the tools to investigate. And this isn't really about "Spotting ToU" him/herself, it about the next one, and the next one, and the next one. You and your cronies do not have the right to persecute on suspicion alone. Tarc (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Crony? I don't recall ever interacting with smallbones and that's quite a melodramtic reading that I pounce on everyone, there is good and compelling evidence on who it is and I don't recall me removing it for being critical to the project, I wouldn't have cared if he was having a huge circle jerk on jimbos page about how great the place is, banned is banned. The rationale was it is a block evading editor, maybe you missed that point? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Regarding "The rationale was it is a block evading editor...", could you please provide a link to where this finding of fact was made? Tarc (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Right after you show me where the SPI failed, it said no sleepers. This meant there was enough evidence or a checkuser to do a check, they requested more information to connect it to the old account. We added that and then similarities in behaviors with other confirmed socks. I tell you what if it comes back I will apoligize to both of you and anyone else involved but I'm confident that this is a banned user, the entire language and rhetoric used screams it, you can ignore that but I'm curious as to why you would want to? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Bit of a strawman there, as the SPI has not failed, it has simply not concluded yet. Again, you don't get to take the wiki-law into your own hands and harass editors who simply look like a sock. Tarc (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Work this out like reasonable adults. Or escalate to ANI. Or whatever. AN3 is not for getting your way in petty disputes. Or go fix this article instead - there are so many better ways to spend your time on Wikipedia. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
@Tarc: "Again, you don't get to take the wiki-law into your own hands and harass editors who simply look like a sock." Apparently you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia. (blatant sarcasm) What way to defend a POV, or simply score wikipoints, than to hunt new editors and accuse them of being socks? It's much easier than doing something worthwhile. Reventtalk08:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
User is trying to push his political opinions and not adhering to NPOV and not assuming good faith. He doesn't even care about the grammar of the sentence. He is not taking part in a constructive discussion. I reverted his edits to save the quality of the article. Please block the user by reverting his edits. Rameshnta909 (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
This is the sentence he addded in the article MDMA suggests Subramania Swamy along with Chandraaamy in this assasintaion case
//User is trying to push his political opinions//
How did this user know my political view/opinions? I make edits with reference only. User:Rameshnta909 directly delete the sentence which was added by me eventhough with reference. If he want to delete a sentence with refernce he only need to tal on that page. Not me.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
NOTE: Both users have exceeded 3RR by quite a bit. Also, the 'reference' for the sentence in question is a google search. Which is not a valid reference. It needs to be a specific work (book, magazine, website, etc.). And reliable as well. --‖ Ebyabetalk - Health and Welfare ‖ 17:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Please understand my efforts to delete the unconstructive edit of the reported user. He doesn't even care about the grammar or spelling and citing google search as a source. I have reverted the edits not to conduct edit war but to save the quality of the article. Rameshnta909 (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours No excuse for reverting each other like madmen. You are both behaving in an extremely disruptive manner. Please read edit warring and resume discussions on the talk page post 24 hours. Follow the procedure listed out at dispute resolution to work out your problems. If you get into another revert war, the scaling up of the block would be immediate. I'm watching the page from hereon. Thanks. WifioneMessage18:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Did either of you try to discuss the situation with each other, not just post warnings? No. Did you revert each other multiple times, way over 3? Yes. Who is right or wrong is not relevant. Both of you are at fault and, imho, both of you should be blocked. Then after you'be both cooled down some, maybe you can discuss this calmly and come to a consensus. My opinion, fwiw. That's all for me, I'm out. --‖ Ebyabetalk - State of the Union ‖ 18:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Then, since 6 August 2014 a series of reversions have been occurring between the aforementioned users:
Haken arizona:
06 August 2014 07:41 (UTC) "Undid revision 618547834. Any factual information on the event is encyclopedic. Attendance numbers were important for this GP, it forced FIA to make few changes"
06 August 2014 20:45 (UTC) "Undid revision 620069960 . It did. low attendance was big news after that GP. Flavio Briatore was invited in Hungarian GP to discuss what they can to do make the sport more popular because of it."
06 August 2014 22:03 (UTC) "Undid revision 620142603 because of low attendance the next race stewards did not investigate minor incidents to improve the entertainment of the gp. You need to quit your ego"
08 August 2014 05:28 (UTC) "Undid revision 620154264 unreasonable deletion of sourced facts. You need to quit your ego"
Prisonermonkeys:
06 August 2014 9:07 (UTC) " "it happened, therefore it is scientific" is no argument - and it did not bring about any of the changes you claim"
06 August 2014 20:51 (UTC) "It was an idea that was quickly dropped. Attendance figures are not notable."
06 August 2014 22:39 (UTC) "You said it yourself - "minor changes". That's hardly worth mentioning in the article."
08 August 2014 06:01 (UTC) "See Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject Formula One - consensus says that if this is to be included, then there is a more appropriate way for it to be included" (NOTE: This is the current version of the article)
All in all Prisonermonkeys reverted the same content five times, while Haken Arizona reverted four times. While the currently ongoing reverting sequence seems not to be a clear-cut violation of WP:3RR, I believe it to be a clear case of gaming the system as both users' fourth reverts, which occurred despite a kind request on the Project's Talk page no to do so, happened just outside the 24 hour mark. This is another in an ever increasing list of edit-wars by Prisonermonkeys. From the last twelve months:August 2013
-5 January 2014
-12 January 2014
-13 January 2014
-30 March 2014
-14 April 2014
-15 April 2014 For Haken arizona it appears to be the first edit war, it's a relatively new user though. Tvx1 (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Note. I'm confused. First, neither editor's fourth revert occurred "just outside" the 24-hour window, not even close. Second, I dunno about Pirsonermoneys's history of edit warring but they've never been blocked for anything. That said, the two are edit-warring over the last week or so.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Clarification: Regarding the "gaming of the system" concern, I did count the time from the third pair of reverts, which shortly followed the second pair. The fourth pair did follow not the third that much outside of 24 hours, but I do admit there's quite a lot of time in between the first and second pairs. This means that it's probably not a direct 3RR violation, but, as you established yourself, it is an ongoing edit war nevertheless. Regarding Prisonermonkeys previous edit warring behavior, I did provide links to the edit war warnings and reports being made during the last twelve months in my previous comment. I does indeed appear that no block was issued on Prisonermonkeys as of yet. Why that is the case is a question I cannot answer. I would like to point out that during the last eight months the article 2014 Formula One season was put under full protection twice as a direct result of edit wars in which Prisonermonkeys was involved. Just take a look at the article's protection log.
Here are some links to the page history displaying the protections and the edit-warring preceding it:
So, despite Prisonermonkeys never having been blocked for doing so, this user's edit warring clearly has been serious enough in the past to warrant some action. Tvx1 (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Lame edit war, but it's being discussed at the WikiProject with some progress, and the edit-warring has reduced significantly while that discussion has continued. Prisonermonkeys has some history of over-enthusiastic reverting, but he's hardly the only one prone to that kind of behaviour at that WikiProject, and it should be noted that Prisonermonkeys and Tvx1 do not exactly get on like a house on fire. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Contrary to what is claimed here and despite having had some content disagreements, I do not have a personal problem with Prisonermonkeys and there are no ulterior motives in filing the report. Tvx1 (talk) 21:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I very carefully did not say you had a personal problem with him, nor that you had an ulterior motive for filing this report. I did say that you don't get on, and by that I mean you disagree a lot. I do wonder why you've filed a report when nobody has broken 3RR, and when there have only been two edits since 6 August, and while the discussion has clearly suggested some considerable progress. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I reported because it's an obvious edit war. It's a series of reverting each other without any intermediary edits to the article at all. The fourth pair of reverts happened despite the talk page progress. Haken arizona introduced the information again despite the consensus to present it in another part of the article. And Prisonermonkeys removed it outright again despite no consensus to do so. I referred to Prisonermonkeys previous edit wars solely because I, and all the other users in the project, wish for the user in question to drop the persistent "over-enthusiastic reverting" once and for all. No more no less.
And yet, you always seem to refer me to the administrators shortly after you and I have had some kind of disagreement over the way content is presented in an article. This is the third time you have done it. Bretonbanquet might not be willing to say it - he might not even be thinking it - but I am: there is a pattern to your behaviour which suggests to me that you abuse the ANI reporting process to discredit or remove editors who disagree with you.
If you really did "wish for the user in question to drop the persistent 'over-enthusiastic reverting' once and for all", then why did you misrepresent the situation on the project talk page? If you read it, you will see that the consensus was NOT to keep the information as you so claimed, but rather to remove it from the article lead and place it in the infobox, a consensus that I agreed to. That final set of edits restored that content to the article lead against that consensus, which I removed. I would have added it to the infobox at the same time, but as I explained on the project talk page, I don't know the mark-up for its inclusion. Why did you choose to omit this in this initial report? You were not an active participant in that discussion and yet, twelve hours after the issue is resolved and the page has stabilised, you're running to the admins. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
You're recentmost revert was at 6:01, the report was filed at 15:26. That's not twelve hours in-between. Furthermore, you both of you have been edit warring over this for over a week. So it is was no straightforward assertion at that point that it had "stabilized". I'm getting dead-tired of your accusations of baid-faith against me. I'm entirely uninvolved in this dispute so I don't understand where you get it to claim otherwise. I have nothing to "win" whatsoever in this debate. Your accusations are outright ridiculous. I did not misrepresent anything whatsoever here. I never claimed there was a consensus to include the information in Haken arizona's version. In fact I literally wrote that Haken arizona's reintroduced despite the consensus to present it in the article in an other way (=in the infobox). That is no justification for you by any means to remove it entirely for a fifth total time. If you don't know how to put it in the infobox you ask help from an editor who does know how to. You do not revert again. If have made my motivation for reporting very clear and I stand by it. If you want to believe something else that is your problem. It's not my fault you keep edit warring and eventually get reported for it. You ONLY have yourself to blame for this. If you wouldn't edit war, you wouldn't have to deal with this. Don't do it, plain and simple. Please stop blaming other people for your own behavior. The fact that you claim any sort of justification for your edit warring tells the administrators all they have to know about your attitude. Tvx1 (talk) 01:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Why do you think it is that there are accusations of bad faith? Is it because I'm bored and have nothing better to do with my time? Or could it be because you have repeatedly acted in such a way that has led to me drawing this conclusion? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at High-Rise (film) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. LADY LOTUS • TALK12:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Comments:
User continues to edit the page after WP:EDITWARRING, after I have told them not to add unsourced information, after I have told them not to add a copy and pasted paragraph straight from a website, and then continue to do it and simply tell me to stop undoing them. They are disruptive and continue to do the same edits over and over and over again.
There is definitely edit warring here, but I am leaning towards closing this without action if all parties can agree to use the talkpage to resolve this. @Jtparkinson: will you avoid re-adding any material that has been removed until after it has been discussed on the talkpage and consensus has been reached? You now seem to understand the importance of not adding copyrighted material and of including sources, but allow me to reiterate that these are non-negotiable issues. No prejudice to any other uninvolved admin taking whatever action you see fit. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
The above AN3 result was to protect the page and a suggestion that, "...working it out on talk would be a better idea here". The admin concerned may be unaware of Wtshymanski's tendentious editing history, and certainly unaware that Wtshymanski does not do discussion on article content. Much more can be read here. The page protection ended yesterday, and an editor 85.255.232.168 deleted the unreferenced content that Wtshymanski is determined to hammer into the article [32]. 85.255.232.168 has cited WP:PROVEIT which states:
Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source.
This would suggest that 85.255.232.168 was entirely within his rights to delete the unreferenced material.
Diffs of the user's reverts:
(3 reverts listed in previous AN3 report linked above)
[33] The edit summary ("restore over dubious claims that most headlamps have 3 or 4 AA or AAA batteries...this very page has no photos of such, for instance" is yet another distraction and total nonsense. The reference to the batteries is strange as this was not part of the material challenged (and neither deleted nor restored), and what the lack of photos has to do with anything is anyone's guess.
Diff of original edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]. As stated Wtshymanski does not do discussion so the response was the standard one [35].
Comments:
It should be noted that a discussion has been made on the article talk page by myself and 85.255.233.10 (I am assuming that this is the same editor with a dynamic IP address as the IPs are so similar). It should be noted at that section that Wtshymanski has made no attempt at engaging in discusion the content. His only comment is a distraction and makes no serious attempt to discuss the issue. Two posts have since been made outlining the problem, but these have been ignored. He has merely restored his unreferenced content without discussion and without providing the references required by WP:PROVEIT.
The unreferenced material has been reverted back now four times, though not within 24 hours. But this board is about edit warring as well as 3RR.
Note. For the moment I favor taking no action. Wtshymanski has reverted only once since the protection expired. The IP has reverted twice (once with a screaming edit summary). If Wtshymanski continues to revert, please update this board. My opinion doesn't preclude action by another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
To be fair to the IP, I think that the screaming edit summary was more for emphasis than anything else. Italic or bold text does not work in edit summaries. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
That's superb. All that was required out of this was some sort of marker to Wtshymanski that continued restoration of unreferenced material was unacceptable. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 06:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42]
Comments:
User:Edokter saw something he found aesthetically displeasing, so he changed it without any discussion and without consensus for the change, even though the previous form had been stable ever since the corresponding page move over a year ago. When I noticed these changes, I reverted the article to the WP:STATUSQUO and began a discussion about them. He then repeatedly re-reverted it (see above diffs), insisting that his version (which is inconsistent with the article’s title) was now the status quo and attempting to change the definition of “revert” [43][44]. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Declined. Despite the comment at WP:DRN, this is not an appropriate forum for this content dispute. Each of the editors has reverted four times but in the last five days, so it's hardly a 3RR violation and not even a long slow-burning edit war. If DRN won't take you, perhaps an RfC would be helpful. I suggest both editors get past what the status quo is and how long an edit has stood, etc., and just find a consensus as to how the article should be.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I wasn’t here to dispute content. I was here to dispute his claim of status quo. Guess I should have come straight here… that’s a depressing thought, that immediately reporting someone is the best course of action. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
No, you are here to game the system. And now you continue edit warring because you rrequest has been declined? Please block 174.141.182.82 now until he betters his ways. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}}07:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
You ask for me to be blocked because I made the most recent revert in your edit war? Yeah, your intentions are pure. Per my last edit summary, I just want the article to follow proper style while we discuss whether or not it should. If that’s “gaming the system,” then Wikipedia is broken. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 08:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Guys, Bbb23 has already closed this report. If you're going to invite him to re-open this report in this manner, I'm afraid that might end up looking worse when an alternative could have worked better. Do try dispute resolution once again; it might work for you. But that's not to say either of you can't come back here to report another edit war. This is just to say that as of right now, this issue is closed here. Give it time, try to work out the issue, and if it still becomes a slugfest, come back. Thanks. WifioneMessage10:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm trying to work this out on the Talk page of the article without blocking the IP, but it's not going well. I hadn't seen the IP's comments here until after my last comment on the Talk page, but the IP's comments, unfortunately, make it worse. Just so it's clear, I don't favor either version of the article. It would almost be impossible for me to favor one version over another given how little I understand about the merits of the dispute. My position is simply like "wrong version". The last edit before I made a determination was Edokter's. Therefore, that version stays in place while the discussion goes on, similar to if I had locked the article, and perhaps I should have.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Apparently, the problem has been resolved. Any administrator is free to take over for me at any time in this little contretemps. I don't even understand the resolution. Don't everyone line up at the same time, please.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
In short, I say it should be “‘Heroes’” as it was for the past year because punctuation just works that way, and he says it should be “Heroes” because that’s too many quotation marks. I say he was edit warring by not letting me revert, he says I was edit warring by not letting his version stay. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
Edit warring on both The X Factor (UK series 11) and The X Factor (UK TV series), repeatedly introducing incorrect material, in spite of being told multiple times to stop. They have already been blocked once for edit-warring, so they can't claim not to know what the term in the warning template they got means. The IP is listed as dynamic but the contributions clearly show that it has been used by the same person for over a month now. Thomas.W talk20:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [54]
Comments:
Above I have listed a few of the diffs of a revert-warring IP. None of the involved users had been warned about edit warring, so I went ahead and submitted a warning to each of them. Instead of abiding by the warning and explanation, including a link to WP:3RR and WP:BRD, the IP editor continued to revert material in the article without discussion. It seems that this has been going on for the past few days in the article, and one of the editors has already presented a page protection request (which hopefully can also be taken care of at this time). Regards.--MarshalN20Talk21:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 31 hours but The Almightey Drill (talk· contribs) should know better than to carry on reverting and by the letter of the 'law' should also be blocked. Please report it earlier next time. SmartSE (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I gave them both the same benefit as neither had been properly warned. The Almightey Drill also has a clean edit-warring record ([55]), and I preferred to assume that he did not know about it. In any case, SmartSE, I appreciate your handling of the situation. Regards.--MarshalN20Talk22:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
There has been no violation of the 3RR in 24 hours, but Alyxr's aggressive POV-pushing despite the objections of three other editors has gotten out of hand and should be sanctioned. He has failed to engage in any further discussion and wantonly reverted Pudeo, Stumink, and myself to push an unsourced POV about what communist supposedly believe.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
After Pudeo reverted Alyxr, he's not reverted back. I realise there's no talk page discussion going on with Alyxr right now, but Alyxr has been active on the page till two days back. It seems currently like Alyxr is spending time away from this article and editing other articles; in other words, as of right now, he's not being disruptive You're absolutely right with respect to the fringe view that Alyxr is attempting to implant. I believe I saw somewhere that the reference he's quoting is a Yale University publication. Do you think that that might have made him believe in the credibility of the source? I might be wrong... Irrespective, it's an exceptional claim that Alyxr is making and he needs multiple reliable sources as per policy to insert the claim in the article. Perhaps you could use this line of reasoning with him once more. I'm not blocking Alyxr right now because I feel there's no need to do so right now. If he continues reverting after you've communicated to him the exceptionality of his claim and the need for multiple sources, then I'll block him immediately (unless he produces multiple reliable sources). I hope this sounds sensible to you? I'm not closing this report. Will follow your update in the coming few days here. Thanks. WifioneMessage10:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Not blocked. I'm closing this report now as Alyxr is still not editing the article at all. Come back if there's any continuing issue. WifioneMessage16:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Warned - and gave some good needed advice. I suggest you stick to his talk page and attempt to open up some dialog directly with him there. Dusti*Let's talk!*04:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
User has repeatedly blanked large sections to make a point about moderation at Hacker News, engaged in edit warring, and threatened to IP hop and abuse open proxies to the end of perpetuating said edit war. User's end goal appears to be the introduction of a biased and unsourced 'controversy' section in the article, but has recently been blanking large sections. betafive17:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I am the user in question. My edits have been continually reverted despite complying completely with Wikipedia rules. When I attempted to engage in dialogue on the talk page I was threatened with banning and all of my questions remained unanswered despite constant reverting of my edits.
I fail to see how BetaFive can threaten to ban me for no reason and then become upset at a reference to proxy use. In addition, I fail to see why my edits are being reverted when none of the editors in question will engage in dialogue.
The editor are borderline soapboxes for Paul Graham by censoring any criticism of his moderation policy which is unique it's passive aggressiveness and cruelty (noted and sourced by other editors than myself). They posit that a primary source from Paul Graham is
Valid but a primary source elsewhere is
Non-valid.
I maintain it is the other editors which have a history of disruptive vandalism by removing encyclopaedic material in
Violation of Wikipedia rules. Wiki demon is especially obstructive in this regard.
94.15.82.228 (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
My edits to the article are available for scrutiny by admins (which I welcome), just as is your disruption to it. Please to not attempt to dispute article content here, this is not the appropriate forum. betafive18:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Clerk note: The IP has also engaged in an edit war with other users on the same article. I'd recommend semi-protection for 48 hours or so. Dusti*Let's talk!*00:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Th edit war was over content, not with specific editors. You are trying to turn one incident prolonged over a number of days into a series of behaviours which is patently false. The gist of the events is the following
A number of IP editors highlighted the moderation controversy last year
Editor Vladimir asked for discussion and closed the section
I arrived in July to view any links to Hellbanning which I had been researching and found the links missing so I added them
Vladimir removed them. So I researched the wiki history to see if they were previously there and a whole section had been removed
I restored that section, also leaving my own addition in place
Vladimir removed it and we began to debate the issue (quite civilly and in depth on the talk page)
BetaFive arrived and reverted my edits. BetaFive threatened me with a ban and refused to engage in dialogue. Edit war continued.
WikiDemon arrived and reverted my edits. WikiDemon outright refused to engage in dialogue and continually used belligerent language (I am gutting this whole section etc etc) Edit war continued.
Two further editors expressed agreements that the moderation controversy had merit and should be discussed. Their points were ignored.
WikiDemon and BetaFive demanded primary sources or they would continually revert my edits
In line with their wishes I removed all content attributed to a primary source. Edit war continued.
I was quite clear that if nobody would answer my questions then I saw no reason to stop edit warring. You don't get to come to an article, refused to debate, revert edits and then accuse the other party of breaking the rules and demand they leave.
A third editor arrived and incorporated my/original edits into the wider article with sourced references with an admittedly less disdainful tone.
The situation was marked as resolved.
The idea that I edit warred with different editors is false. If anything, it was a selection of editors lining up to edit war with me. Wikidemon demanded that the page be protected on the version of edits that he had put in place. BetaFive simply demanded the page be protected on any version.
I am new to Wikipedia but I found the experience cliquey and utterly devoid of any intelligent discourse other than my original exchange with Vladimir which ran into over 1000 words of well structured debate. Both BetaFive and WikiDemon refused to partake in that discussion which in my mind escalated the edit war way beyond where it had been previously with just me and Vladimir.
User has now IP-jumped (by his/her/its own admission) to 157.203.243.21, and then 157.203.242.36, and has been repeatedly editing my comments at Talk:Hacker News, having received no fewer than four warnings that such editing is wholly inappropriate. betafive15:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I have neither IP jumped or admitted anything of the sort you absolute liar. I was editing from my workplace which, if you review the IP, you can see the IP range has a number of edits on Wikipedia regarding our home town and locally relevant content. Are you planning to IP ban all 7,000 users from my workplace? How about you stop lying and/or jumping to conclusions. If I was using a proxy I wouldn't be here defending myself would I? In addition, I am editing your comments because you *continue* to disregard wikipedia rules by writing a conclusion to the page that *only* contains your arguments. Is it that important to you to "win" that you are disregarding everyone elses comments and arguments? Get the Conclusion changed. It's that simple. You do not reserve the right to speak on behalf of other editors and if you continue to do so I will revert your edits, it is that simple. Also, stop running to the administrators and refusing to engage in dialogue. Admins - is the user BetaFive allowed to write conclusion to the talk page which only lists his own arguments or does he have to write a Conclusion which impartial? He can write all of the personal arguments he wants, but I won't allow him to summarise or sideline *my* arguments from the "official" conclusion. 2.122.134.51 (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Note I have closed the discussion at Talk:Hacker News, since it's devolved into a squabble over the closing summary. The IP appears to be abiding by my closure, so hopefully this matter has been resolved. —C.Fred (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
User being reported:Righteousskills(talk· contribs · deleted contribs · logs ·filter log· block user ·block log) and most probably is the same editor of most of the IP editors involved in the same issue.
Comments:
Both articles are constantly being edited under a blatant difamation contributions prioritizing deletion of almost all information about the person and leaving the article almost exclusivelly about defamation suits. Please, see talk pages, another editor User:Eleonora Venezuela is doing a superb work of tracking and reverting under a neutral viewpoint so I did try to give an helping hand but finally this issue is going too far and beyond 3RR. I'm kindly asking to compare Righteousskills editions with previous anonymous ones (the anonymous IPs look like to have been blocked, see here, so he's forced to edit under real registered username (I do not understand what is the reason behind this but I do not care, even I guess is strange). Another anonymous editor User:46.24.172.71 posted this on his talk page so after his irrefutable contribution, I firmly believe that behind his edits, he's looking for something else than a neutral and informative article, clearly a conflict of interests. A Venezuelan exiled activist? Who cares? This is not the right place for political rivalries and conflicts outside wikipedia.--Gilwellian (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
p/s. I was looking for some kind of arbitration and drop a line to administrator Daniel Case here, but he's on holidays right now.--Gilwellian (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
These allegations are absurd and I deny them fully. I will be filing a similar complaint. There are several unregistered IPs editing on the page, all with the same views as Gilwellian. Righteousskills (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
User931 had previously been in edit war over this matter in mid-May, had been brought to ANI over it and warned there (see [69]), and had simply walked away from the article and discussion. Showed up again yesterday, not talking and edit-warring instead.
[70] 16:56, 10 August 2014 with edit note "For the love of... every chance you get you remove text and references while just previously been accepting the text"
[71] 16:57, 10 August 2014 continuing to restore material deleted in his/her absence)
Back in May when problems started, I asked User91 to come and discuss via User91's talk page, here
User91 persisted and got 3RR notice from another editor in this dif
User931 was notified of an ANI discussion about his edits in this dif, started by Formerly 98. It was after this, that User91 disappeared.
In current events I asked User91 to come to talk in edit note in this dif and this dif.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: [75]
Comments:
User appears to be WP:NOTHERE -- has not responded to the discussion that he/she walked away from on Talk back in May, nor to requests to talk on his/her Talk page. Just here to edit war. Please block for edit warring and "failure to communicate." Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment The difs provided span a two day period and do not seem to be a violation of 3RR because you need 4 reverts within 24 to violate 3RR. Also, the edit history for Isotretinoin shows Jytdog also involved in this edit war, although he is also under the 3RR limit. Seems premature to bring it here. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Bobo, you still don't understand Wikipedia. We discuss differences. You don't edit war... you don't edit war to the point where you get warned for 3RR and separately brought to ANI where admins warn you, and you don't just walk away after that and then come back months later and pick right up edit warring where you left off, still not talking. You don't still don't understand this. Neither does User931. I hated wasting my time posting this notice. Jytdog (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Jytdog, I understand that discussion is important on Wikipedia. When I asked you on talk page "why not attain talk page consensus prior to deletion of longstanding text" you ignored that question and instead filed this ANI report (although I see since filing you have responding that I'm "judging" which I disagree with. I'm merely agreeing with User931 that it seems good practice to attain talk page consensus prior to deleting long standing text). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:User931 --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I can attest to jytdog's description of the events of a few months back. User931 attempted to edit war material supported only by non-MEDRS compliant sources into the article and refused to engage on the Talk page in our previous interaction. There are no subtle issues in play here or POV disagreements. The material in question is clearly supported only by non-MEDRS compliant sources, and User931 consistently re-added the material after the rules were pointed out, and refused to engage on the Talk page. I had not noticed this till now, but it appears to be a re-initiation of the same behavior. Formerly 98 (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Isotretinoin shows no talk page participation since May 2014. User931 has requested via edit summary and on his talk page that editors attain talk page consensus prior to deletion of long standing text. Jytdog has asked User931 via edit summaries and on User931's talk page to bring objections to the deletions to talk page. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
That's right. User931 has not participated in any Talk since May. He has just edit warred. Again, you don't seem to understand how fundamental collaboration and discussion are here. Jytdog (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but the last several paragraphs found there are requests to User931 to respond to the comments that Jytdog and I left there. He chose not to do so, but to resume edit warring. There are no new posts there from Jytdog and myself, because User931 has not responded to the issues we already raised. Do you think it would be helpful for us to continue repeating ourselves?Formerly 98 (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it is good practice and would be helpful to attain talk page consensus prior to deletion of long standing article text. Plenty of edits have been made since May, but no one has participated on talk page since May. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
BoboMeowCat, please read WP:BRD. In the absence of solid, policy and guideline related discussion of deleted or changed content (regardless of how 'long standing' it was) being pursued on the talk page, given the lapse in time, consensus has become that the changes have been accepted. What you are now discussing is challenging the standing consensus. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Result: Warned User:User931. This user appears to have some medical knowledge but may not understand how WP:MEDRS works. It took me a while to figure out what the dispute is about, but I think it's clear now. See especially the new thread at Talk:Isotretinoin#Conflicts of early August 2014. There have been some lawsuits by people claiming injury by this drug, but MEDRS tells us how to deal with the situation. Legal judgments can go in the history section using normal sourcing standards. But we can't put that same information into Adverse Effects unless sources acceptable per WP:MEDRS say they really are adverse effects. It is up to consensus how MEDRS is applied in particular cases but User931 is expected to join the discussion and wait for support there. User931 made a revert here which in effect declares that a legal judgment belongs under adverse effects. EdJohnston (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion unnecessary due to it being an obvious case of WP:SPIP (Proof: One of the sources he added here was from a SpongeBob fanfiction wiki page written by a user with a name similar to his "Danerdreal" account.)
Comments:
This user has added the indie game sixothertimesbeforethisone, making me believe that the article should be semi-protected. He also removed the template I used to warn him about edit warring right before reverting me again, showing that he knew what he did was wrong and did it anyway. ~jcm 01:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
13:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Misuse */ This section of the article serves nothing to the information except to attack a religious group who is not so much attacking themselves."
13:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC) "This sections of the page only serves to detract from the information in the article and to attack a specific religious group."
13:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Misuse */ Many Christians, like myself do not believe in a different science. We believe in the exact same science. The information deleted was false information."
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [85]
[[86]]
[[87]]
I have tried reporting him for his edits on two similar articles Azad Kashmir and Gilgit–Baltistan to two administrators over here [[88]]
[[89]]. I am pretty sure they will take some action against him but i just wanted to tell that there is no doubt that the regions are disputed along with Indian Jammu and Kashmir region but there is no need to put disputed word in every other line if it is mentioned once as in the case of indian Jammu and Kashmir but he is just reverting like an indian nationalist:
Declined. The User:Showmethedoor's last edited version of the article you refer to shows the term "disputed" only once in the whole article. So I don't think the issue is as bad as you feel. At the same time, may I suggest that calling any editor "an Indian nationalist" might exacerbate the issue and I recommend you be extremely civil in your communication. Lastly, forum shopping might not be looked upon positively on the project. Use one forum to report the user and stick to it, rather than trying to go to various forums with the same issue. I'm declining your request as of right now as I see no edit warring. If the situation worsens, come back. WifioneMessage18:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I notice that the user does not have many edits and might not realise what is the 3RR. No appropriate warning was given to the user. Subsequent to your report, I have warned the user and asked User:Direct action to revert their last undo. If the user doesn't comply, he will be blocked. WifioneMessage12:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I've left Wifione a message. Personally I think Altenmann jumped the gun, as I was literally writing on the talk page (which I bid him take his issues to first, and which he neglected to do) while I was being reported for 3RR violation. Rather than falling over myself running to the admins, I'd prefer to work this out like a couple of adults who are capable of treating one another with respect, as I have done so in the past with other adults on the exact same issue regarding the exact same sourced content. Hopefully we can do that. Direct action (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Direct action, I'm responding here instead of on my talk page. You left a message, where the crux was: "I know what 3RR is, and I'm aware I violated it in this instance, but I did so in order to keep, in the article, properly-sourced and relevant content upon which I and other editors worked with each other for a long period to establish consensus vis à vis an agreeable version of the content (in short, the actual quotes were snipped and embedded in the references rather than written out in the article itself)." You cannot break 3RR on this premise. Read the policy and ask me if any part of it is unclear. I am sorry for putting it like this but you will have to restrain yourself, as another 3RR violation would not see you be forewarned before the block. Additionally, your writing to fellow like-minded editors[95][96] to join the edit war may be considered canvassing and should be stopped immediately. Please continue the discussions on the talk page of the article and collaborate towards a consensus. Use dispute resolution if talk page discussions fail. But no more multiple reverts please. I'm closing this report here assuming that you have realised the mistake. I'm watching the article for a few weeks from hereon. Thanks. WifioneMessage15:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The 3RR policy isn't unclear. It's fundamentally flawed and leaves Wikipedia highly prone to the bandwagon fallacy and to surreptitiously-coordinated efforts such as those documented as undertaken by several Zionist advocacy groups and official organizations, but the policy is not unclear. As a point of fact, since you accused me of "canvassing", I'm compelled to point out that I wasn't asking others to "join the edit war", not least since I don't see myself as participating in an edit war; I was asking for advice (which should be clear since I used the term "advice" directly and you obviously read the messages I left) given that I don't have much knowledge of or experience with the Byzantine dispute structures of Wikipedia. The case of this 3RR violation reporting is a perfect example of my lack of experience in this realm, actually, as, even though he and several others were clearly acting contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia (e.g. WP:BRD), Altenmann seized the initiative by reporting me before I could (or even thought to) report any of them, and thus apparently only my actions came under any "official" scrutiny. I don't know what your purview is, i.e. if you only focus on potential 3RR violations or if you're supposed to respond to any violations you are alerted to or come across, but I find your total lack of comment on any of the behaviors exhibited by the other players in this ridiculous drama to be quite disheartening. Don't worry, I won't break the 3RR rule any time in the near future. Direct action (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Not blocked. My suggestion is to engage the IP some more and see if they respond. To block for changing a term multiple times from "debunked" to "attempted to debunk" might not be the right thing to do here. If you think the IP continues to be disruptive without responding at all, come back and we'll work something else out. Hope this works for you? WifioneMessage17:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
There are multiple attempts to engage the IP editor on his talk page: at least five. He or she does not respond, but simply continues to make the same edit. TJRC (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I've tried to ensure that the user knows this kind of editing is not allowed. I've left a warning on their talk page. Why don't you open up a discussion on the article's talk page with respect to the IP's edits and see if the IP joins? If the issue continues through this week or beyond, do come back and also give a reference to this report that you filed. WifioneMessage00:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I'M edit warring? He is the one who is edit warring. The user keeps reverting my edits, claiming France did not exist until the 11th century! The ridiculousness of this claim is obvious. Furthermore, the user refuses to talk with me on the talk page, where I outlined my case. It is he, not me, who is edit warring. Toolen (talk) 08:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Toolen, you've not broken 3RR, but are close to it. One more revert within this day, and I shall block you. Seeing the kind of edit warring warnings and block you've already had in the recent past, please tread extremely carefully. A strong suggestion would be to continue discussions on the talk page of the article. Read up dispute resolution and attempt to resolve the dispute amicably rather than in the manner going on. Iñaki LL is there on the talk page of the article attempting to discuss with you. So discuss there, and stop reverting immediately, else the block would be considerably longer than the last one you had. WifioneMessage12:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know that Inaki LL is the one who is edit warring, not me. The evidence is on the page itself. Inaki LL deleted my contribution to the status box because he claims France did not exist until the 11th century. Such a claim is ridiculous and contradicts information already used on Wikipedia. Furthermore, unlike Iñaki LL, I presented my case on the articles talk page. Another obvious sign of guilt is the fact that he reported me only after I threatened to report him. This was going to be first time I'd ever had to report someone, so I was still trying to work out how to do it when he beat me to the punch, reporting me before I could report him. I've been a user for a number of years, but there are some things I'm still don't know how to do, a fact which this user clearly took advantage of. I can't help but feel bullied by this more experienced user, and I want my side of the story known. I've dedicated myself to ensuring factual accuracy on this website, and I always do my research before I add anything. If I don't use a source, it usually means that the info was added based on sources already on Wikipedia or in another article on this page. I did extensive research before I added the info to the status box of the Duchy of Aquitaine, including researching each individual Duke and Duchess who ruled the duchy. It took me days before I was finally able to add that info, and then Iñaki LL goes and deletes it based on his ridiculous claim that France didn't exist until the 11th century, something that anyone familiar with the history of France can tell you is not true. When it became apparent that this user would not stop reverting, I presented my case on the articles talk page. The other user did not respond, and when he reverted my edit again, I warned him in the summary of my subsequent edit that I was going to report him. That was when he reported me before I could even act upon my threat. My apologies for rambling on for so long. I just wanted you to know the full story. The evidence is there on the articles talk page and in the edit history. The user may have added something to the talk page since then, but if so, he didn't add it until after he reported me. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Toolen (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Toolen for the note here. It doesn't matter how well you researched some information. Unless you add verifiable and reliable sources that confirm your statement, you are going the wrong way by adding unreferenced information. User:Iñaki LL has asked for verifiability of your claim; and you don't seem to be providing that within the article. I'm going to advise you to revert your addition to the article at the soonest and and the same back only after you've discussed your reliable source on the talk page of the article. Else, if you continue adding unsourced claims, you will end up getting blocked very soon. Please read up WP:Original research, WP:Verifiability, WP:NPOV and WP:Citing sources properly before adding back contentious material that is being challenged. Hope this clarifies your issue. WifioneMessage01:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I guess a comment belongs here. The user Toolen was rather unresponsive and kept going straight ahead. I urged from the beginning to take it to discussion, he did not, and kept reverting with an explanation. Once on discussion, he kept reverting. As far as I have just seen, he keeps adding his investigation (even ghostly dates to the infobox, like 1449, nowhere to be found) but no verifiability. I did not go deeper into his edits, but for a start he has changed Francia to France again, etc. Even jumping up now to a related article (Duchy of Gascony), besides adding an undue comment on my talk page (it belongs to discussion of Duchy of Aquitaine, where I will add my comments). Iñaki LL (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I'm confused, no outcome here? Time goes by and this is the only dispute around with no outcome. I add link to discussion. For all his rant, user Toolen's non cooperative bulldozing has been time consuming especially for me (3-4 hours? Probably yes!), all for trying to get an article free of vague claims and stick to accurate data where I could provide them. A warning belongs here. Iñaki LL (talk) 10:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Vague claims? Inaccurate data? Poppycock! I did my research and that was what I found. I forget to put the sources in. It was an honest mistake, one that is easily fixable. Furthermore, the only reason I kept reverting after entering the discussion was because he didn't respond. One can only wait so long for a discussion to get going before they lose their patience. He needs to stop reverting my edits and check the facts himself if he has a problem with my information. Right now, all I see him doing is deleting my information without bothering to correct any perceived inaccuracies. Such deletions are not productive, deleting what relevant information is in the edit in addition to any incorrect data. If he wants to discuss this, he needs to actually discuss this with me in the talk page rather than just saying he will do so. My apologies with the lateness of the comment, but I have been quite busy. Toolen (talk) 06:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
User has not only not discussed the mater on the talk page, but continues to engage in edit warring after a number of warnings on the user's talk page. Jab843 (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Comments:
User CFredkin even removes VERIFIED information from John Kline's CONGRESSIONAL website. User has consistently edited all accurate - but potentially negative - information about John Kline. All the information about his ex-wife was CONFIRMED and VERIFIED through public records. Suggest that user should be banned.
23:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 621277779 by 112.169.25.11 (talk)Multiple Vandalism attempts,reverting to previous edition which contains biased information,"
23:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 621277606 by 112.169.25.11 (talk)Multiple Vandalism attempts,reverting to previous edition which contains biased information,requesting to block this IP :112.169.25.11"
23:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 621277367 by 112.169.25.11 (talk)Multiple Vandalism attempts,reverting to previous edition which contains biased information,requesting to block this IP :112.169.25.11"
23:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 621276886 by 112.169.25.11 (talk)Multiple Vandalism attempts,reverting to previous edition which contains biased information,requesting to block this IP :112.169.25.11."
23:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 621276432 by 112.169.25.11 (talk)Multiple Vandalism attempts,reverting to previous edit which contains Biased information."
Comments:4 Reverts on the 18th, because he removed a genre that was unsourced and I said to start a discussion before blanking it and giving no one a chance to reference it.
I've told the user that the article in question is a featured article and should have sources. Unsourced material should be removed rather than left alone to keep it's high quality. I've also been accused of not taking it to the talk page. (Which I have as seen here). I also assumed the user was either new or a vandal due to edit comments such as these here. Please note the user has not left a comment on my page nor have they went to my talk page discussion, which I think is required by WP:3RR. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Result: No action. This is a war over music genres. Lukejordan02 exceeded 3RR on August 18 but it seems that both parties are edit warring. Lack of sources does not grant an exemption to 3RR. Blocks may not be needed since a thread at User talk:Lukejordan02 shows an effort to discuss. EdJohnston (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
followed after EW warning with this "technical self-revert" [111] which capitalized one letter as a "self-revert" Note that absolutely none of the revert edit summaries referred to WP:BLP whatsoever
Comments:
Tryptofish at no point invoked WP:BLP,nor do I think using a word found in the source proffered for the article in quotes is violative of WP:BLP. I found the claim that capitalizing a single letter was a "technical self-revert" was a risible move. The editor than says that they are no longer in violation of the bright-line 3RR rule (5RR in 25 hours seems a violation to me). Collect (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: I asked four times for a self-revert from Tryptofish as I dislike having to post on the noticeboards. The case is, alas, IMHO, blatant. If capitalizing one letter qualifies as a "self-revert" then I am a trifle amused. Collect (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Taking Collect's diffs one-by-one:
Whether Collect agrees with me or not, it is a BLP issue, and I cited BLP in my edit summary: [113].
A very minor edit, unrelated to the rest, and I have now self-reverted it.
This was to some extent a revert on my part, but it also involved some rewriting of the text by me from what had been the version of my previous edit to the page, and reflected discussion amongst editors at the article talk page, and at WP:NPOVN.
Not a revert at all (except to the extent that I was changing something that I, myself, had previously written)! I previously used one word, got feedback from other editors that it was a poor word choice, and I changed it myself.
Yes, that was a direct revert.
I've stated clearly on my talk page that I do not intend to make any further reverts [114], so there is nothing to prevent here. I'm an experienced editor, and I think you can trust me when I say that.
Declined. Vexatious litigation, no action. I agree that Tryptofish's "technical self-revert" was risible. Collect's calling Tryptofish's original edit, listed as revert n:o 2 above, a "revert" at all would be even more risible if it wasn't so battleground-y. If de-capitalizing one letter qualifies as a "revert", but changing it back doesn't qualify as a self-revert, then I'd be more than a trifle amused, if it didn't make me so depressed. If you insist on being technical about it, Collect, note also that there has by no stretch of the imagination been any revert from Tryptofish after you left the warning. (P.S., I've moved one post so as to make the above discussion chronological.) Bishonen | talk22:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC).
Thanks. (Just so that you understand, the top-posting resulted from an edit conflict here (I was replying rapidly), and I didn't feel right about changing it after it happened.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [120] (although Bongey deleted it almost as soon as I placed it on his/her talk page)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [121]
Comments:
Bongey is one of about three users who is currently edit warring to place original research (in which the users attempt to establish in Wikipedia's voice which of several witness reports are reliable) on the page above. Other editors have at least engaged in some discussion, but Bongey has not even attempted discussion. He/she is just reinstating his/her preferred edits although at least three different users have undone those edits citing the same concerns. The diffs above are just the full reverts; there are a number of intermediate reverts as well in which Bongey reinstated other material that violates WP policies. Again, at least 4 reverts + no discussion whatsoever.
Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. @Dyrnych: You should be careful yourself not to breach 3RR. I'm not saying you did, but you made a great many edits on August 18. If the article weren't so incredibly active, I would have scrutinized your edits more closely. This isn't a warning. Just a heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
No worries, and I appreciate your concern. There was a lot of vandalism on the article by IP users after the page came off semi-protection. Dyrnych (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [130] and in edit summaries.
Comments:User has been repeatedly removing sourced details from this article. Even after further sources were added, s/he still reverted it claiming all details were a BLP violation when they weren't. User has also made baseless accusations on my talk page and in their edit summaries on the article page of me being another user who was blocked, linking to another IP address which is not even the same ISP as mine and in a completely different location. In addition to edit warring, a clear breach of WP:NPA as seen in their insulting and offensive messages on my talk page, as well as persistent lack of WP:AGF. Also possible WP:OWN judging by how long this has been going on on this particular article, and possible WP:SOCK as another account conveniently took over for them on the article minutes later. Judging by the multitude of historical reports made by other users on the admin and 3RR noticeboards, there is clearly a tendency for this user to be troublesome. 88.104.24.7 (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I am the account referred to as the possible sock. TheRedPenOfDoom and I have both been active in for years so we have crossed paths a few times, but in general we have little overlap. Suggesting we are socks simply because I happened to agree with TheRedPenOfDoom's undo of the IP's edit is a reach. I undid the IP's edit once here with a clear edit summary saying that the parts I checked had not been adequately supported by the refs, and I was undoing on BLP grounds. I issued the 3RR warning to the IP because it was the 4th time today that the IP had made that exact same undo and that it had been restored on BLP grounds.
I think there's a good case for a WP:boomerang here. I didn't issue a 3RR warning to TheRedPenOfDoom since I agreed that the material was a BLP violation. Meters (talk) 02:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The fact remains that you still removed sourced details from the article that were clearly not a BLP violation, and trying to characterise it as such is wrong. These are the very same sourced details that TheRedPenOfDoom was repeatedly removing and the fact you did it only minutes after he had already breached 3RR smacks of WP:TAGTEAM. 88.104.24.7 (talk) 03:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I've already stated that I have nothing to do with the other editor. It was my independent decision, not tag teaming. I saw an edit that was undone on BLP grounds but was restored by you claiming "blatant vandalism". As I said, I didn't check the entire edit. The parts I checked seemed to me to justify the description of it as having BLP issues, and did not justify your calling TheRedPenOfDoom's undo as vandalism. Some of your edit may well be acceptable, but the undo certainly wasn't blatant vandalism. This isn't the place for anything but a discussion of the edit war. You called for one, and I pointed out the evidence for a WP:boomerang. The edit contents should be discussed on the article's talk page, vandalism at WP:AIV,socking accusations at WP:SPI, and tag teaming at WP:ANI (I suppose). Meters (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
And did you or TheRedPenOfDoom bother to discuss anything on the article talk page? No, you just simply did a blanket revert, removing perfectly sourced details in the process. Saying that you didn't bother checking the entire edit is no defense. In fact, it makes your actions even worse. 88.104.24.7 (talk) 04:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Going by this revert many of the TRPoD's edits seem valid, since the claims in most cases are either unsourced or go beyond what the source says. For instance, you claim that Donovan and Minogue were "romantically involved" during their collaboration on "Especially for You" but the source simply states they had "briefly dated" and is not specific about the time period. You claim that Donovan "dyed his hair for the role", but that is unsourced; it could have been a wig, or he could have dyed it for another reason. I could go on but you get the idea. I think maybe after the third or fourth revert this could have been taken to the talk page but policy does support TRPod's actions in this instance. Your time would be better served by i) sourcing what clearly isn't sourced ii) starting a discussion to address the remaining issues. Betty Logan (talk) 04:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Policy does not support removal of perfectly sourced material. If TRPOD had a genuine concern about some of the details being unsourced, then those details and only those details can either be removed or (ideally) have a cite needed tag placed after them. As it stands, TRPOD removed perfectly sourced material and continued to edit war to keep it that way. 88.104.24.7 (talk) 04:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
If anybody's a sock here, it's 88.104.24.7 . For editing for only a few hours, he sure learned what WP:OWN was pretty darn quick. pbp04:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
At no point have I ever said I've only edited for a few hours. I've been editing Wikipedia for over a year, thank you. I'm not breaking any rules if I choose not to have an account. And if you have any evidence that I am a sock then please share it with us before you start throwing mud. Especially when you have no less than 170 intersecting edits with TheRedPenOfDoom in your edit history. 88.104.24.7 (talk) 04:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:DUCK. I am not going to retract my comment that you have been bouncing from address to address to edit war, and if you think that I am RedPedofDoom's meatpuppet, start an ANI discussion. The boomerang will hit you very, very hard. pbp01:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Without making any judgement here, this content dispute has been going on for five days with zero discussion on talk. Even when we believe another user is violating policy, this discussion more properly belongs on talkspace. Everyone should be hashing this out on talk, not going straight to 3RR or BLP/N. Both the reporter and the reportee have an obligation to discuss differences on talk, if only to document the dispute. BusterD (talk) 04:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd just like to add that in that five days, I have gone to great effort to add additional, perfectly good sources to improve the article only to have them continually removed by TheRedPenOfDoom. The only time s/he has engaged in discussion was to insult me on my talk page. Please note s/he hasn't even bothered to come to this page despite being notified hours ago. 88.104.24.7 (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Comments:
User continues to edit war about candidate İhsanoğlu's hex color code as persistent and stable. I warned him/her many times but i didn't get any results in this conflict. Also, user likewise continue war on the map in commons – Maurice Flesier (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Both editors blocked. I blocked T.C. Ataturkiye for 48 hours (first block). I blocked Maurice Flesier for two weeks (extensive block log for edit warring - two weeks didn't even up the ante).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I've recently added new text including references to the article but this user keeps reverting/removing the information and refuses to present his objections on the talk page. If a moderator could either temporarily lock the page on the version with the (sourced) material added forcing the user to use the talk page to discuss this or to instruct the user to use the talk page instead of reverting (my preffered option). Thank you. Comitus (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it 'favoring' me. 'My' version lists sources for every added section. When I reverted him, I continuously requested him to visit the talk page to name his issues. Instead he just continues reverting. For me, that's the problem. I just want him to discuss his issues on the talk page, instead of reverting, but he refuses. To be honest, him breaking the 3RR doesn't really matter for me. I don't think he should be blocked or anything, its just that I want him to stop reverting sourced material without discussion on the talk page. That's were I need your help. Comitus (talk) 11:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
09:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC) "/* top */ The opening sentence should present it objectively what is said to be their motive, not an opinion piece from a self-published journal in Wikipedia voice. It can me mentioned with attribution in the body."
10:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 621752693 by Vanamonde93 (talk) Take it to WP:RSN if you want to claim not RS in the context. I will put back BISS if I can find it in the reference... within ten minutes."
10:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC) "Put back perfectly fine three references. The stated mission of an organization is taken from their mission statement not from some other person's opinion in an article."
I never removed any reference. Period. I said that the opening statement of an article about an organisation states the objective of the organisation in the same way its mission presents not an unattributed opinion of another person in Wikipedia voice. I used perfectly fine three references.
Diffs only count as reverts is they are non-consecutive. In addition, I edit-conflicted at some point thanks to my slow connection, making an edit that should have been consecutive look like two. I am still on three; and I would point out that I gave the other user a chance to self-revert before coming here. If they had, I would not have. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Two minutes? I can very well open a 3RR too but that would be so stupid. Vanamonde93, I would humbly suggest we discuss the disputed content, I did kickstart the article talk page where you admitted you had made a mistake. This is a different dispute now, which we have not yet discussed on article talk page at all. --AmritasyaPutra✍11:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Am aware of both, for all my editing today shows to the contrary; doesn't BRD require the reverter (in this case, not me) to discuss? Also, I do know that they have one more revert than I do. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion happening now on the talk page of the article; a third user stepped in. The edit war is over, at least for the next 24 hours. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, so you do admit now that you did not discuss. Just pinching. Reddy reverted at your request so you are satisfied now, that is it nothing more. I do not see sincere listening -- my observation, you may differ. The Hindu reference, all three of us agree to it but have not added it yet. There is absolutely no hurry, but I will add it later. --AmritasyaPutra✍14:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The first revert was yours, per BRD you should have discussed then. You have also reverted more times, and are the one claiming a scholarly source to be an SPS, and claiming a self-admittedly RSS newspaper is something else altogether. I suggest you leave off the snide remarks, and stick to the discussion there. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Don't misrepresent me. Read again what I wrote. I wrote about one of the two source, you can check. You know you edit warr`ed without discussion. Thanks. --AmritasyaPutra✍14:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Result: No action for now. All parties are reminded that they are expected to get consensus for changes that may be controversial. Since other editors are available on the Talk page to give their opinions, there is no need for impulsive action. Please avoid making personal comments on the talk page. "Are you deliberately being dense" should be avoided. Anyone can ask a question at WP:RS/N if you want an opinion on the usability of a source. EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Diese Website benutzt Cookies. Wenn du die Website weiter nutzt, gehe Ich von Deinem Einverständnis aus.OKNeinDatenschutzerklärung
Declined. The IP has made only three edits to Wikipedia, all to this article, two on August 4 and one on August 6. You issued him a templated vandalism warning. You didn't talk to him. You didn't warn him about edit warring. You didn't even notify him of this discussion, which is required. I can't block him for this, and there's no justification for semi-protecting the article. The only thing I could do would be to warn him as I agree that his edits are disruptive (silly is probably a better descriptor). He may be incompetent, judging not only the by the edits but by the edit summaries, or he may be a kid. But I'm not going to warn him until you've taken the trouble to talk to him first. Then you can you say you were "blown off" with some legitimacy. Sorry if my comments are a bit harsh, but you're a seasoned and productive editor, so I'm holding you to a higher standard. Besides, aren't you biased? If I recall, you're a horse person. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Note. I don't know much about the merits of the content dispute (other than it's making me hungry), but you (Gunkarta) seem to be edit-warring just as much as Lee788.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did to High-Rise (film), without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Clerk note: The IP has also engaged in an edit war with other users on the same article. I'd recommend semi-protection for 48 hours or so. Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Page protected (full) for one month by Drmies.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Warned Wifione Message 15:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)