Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive108

User:Blippy reported by User:2over0 (result: 24 hours)
This edit war, sillily enough, involves the addition of POV in relation to a wider dispute over presentation at Sense About Science.




 * revert 1 08-19
 * revert 2 08-21
 * revert 3 08-21
 * revert 4 08-21
 * revert 5 08-21
 * revert 6 08-21
 * Blippy uses the term 3RR in edit summary aware of policy (08-18)
 * Johnuniq explains the burden of engaging in discussion, Blippy replies (08-20)
 * same from me 08-19
 * I mention that editwarring is more than just 3RR 08-18

- 2/0 (cont.) 01:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * An interesting case of a number of editors unwilling to acknowledge a lack of consensus on NPOV - I have no desire to edit war, merely that the POV tag remain in place while we address the issues. I am attempting to work in good faith, but am getting very little assistance in this regard.  I don't think that I have violated 3RR - I hadn't intended to - but timing may have been an issue.  I am happy to accept whatever a fair minded independent admin thinks.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 02:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * &mdash; it's evident multiple editors objected to Blippy's repeated edits; moreover, the user had already been warned about edit warring ~ June 30th. -- slakr \ talk / 23:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

User:99.144.250.128 reported by User:Xenophrenic (Result: 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:
 * AKA User:
 * AKA User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:04, 21 August 2009


 * 1st revert: 01:43, 21 August 2009
 * 2nd revert: 01:51, 21 August 2009
 * 3rd revert: 02:24, 21 August 2009
 * 4th revert: 15:43, 21 August 2009
 * 5th revert: 17:10, 21 August 2009
 * 6th revert: 17:39, 21 August 2009
 * 7th revert: 12:16, 22 August 2009


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 00:48, 4 August 2009 and 17:52, 21 August 2009. Repeat offender; claims to have been editing since '01.


 * The last half of this talk page detail the efforts of several editors to explain the sourcing and BLP violations in an effort to resolve this edit war.

This dynamic-IP user has been blocked at least twice before, for personal attacks and edit warring here and here while editing this same article. Recently reverted by at least 4 other editors, yet continues to repeatedly reinsert content in violation of WP:BLP. I haven't reverted more than three times yet, but I certainly will as instructed by WP:BLP policy if necessary, unless advised otherwise by the responding Admin. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Mifter (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * [99.141.246.39] was blocked, not the IP in question today. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 01:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Rvcx reported by User:J (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: pre-unblock version


 * 1st revert: first batch of edits after his unblock, including revert to again remove long stable, sourced material
 * 2nd revert: second batch of edits, including reverts to again remove long stable, sourced material
 * 3rd revert: third revert to reinsert material established as poorly sourced per wp:blp
 * 4th revert: fourth revert to restore his edits


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: most recent
 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning preceding prior block


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

Fresh off his 48h block for attempted edit warring at Carly Fiorina, User:Rvcx immediately returned to reverting to restore his preferred revisions. Not really sure what to do at this point, he continues to mix in wp:blp violations with his reverts... user: J  aka justen (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Article since fully protected for one month, again. Ugg.  user: J  aka justen (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Jayron32 has protected the page. His rationale can be found in the ANI thread. EdJohnston (talk) 04:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Curtis23 reported by User:TJ Spyke (Result:24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:

I also suspect this IP revert was his:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (not a formal 3RR warning, but a warning)


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not on the article talkpage, but on the users talkpage.

User admits on their userpage that they love pictures in PPV articles, but seem to not understand the concept of too many pictures. They seem intent on cramming as many pictures as possible into the article regardless of how that actually makes the article look. When I tried putting the tag on, they reverted that too (which is not noted above, but maybe it should be) and said on my talkpage that they don't think there are too many pictures.  TJ   Spyke   02:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Curtis23 is indeed edit warring against more than one other user, so 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Dewan357 reported by User:K.Khokhar (Result: Submitter 48h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

Constant edit warring and reversions over a long period of time, multiple warnings from a number of editors, continued POV and disruptive edits, user returns after short breaks and carries on from where they left off.

I believe that the user K.Khokhar is wrongly accusing me! Because I reported about her to User:Nishkid64. Abour her constant reverts to my edits after I gave reference to add the explaination about Dravidians. However she changed that but I did not do anything about it instead I contacted User:Dbachmann and Dab made neutral changes. Because Dbachmann is one of the most senior Editors in Wiki. After that I made some clean up like comas and periods as you can see in the history section. I believe the user K.Khokhar wants to make this article a Pakistani article. If anyone is edit warring is her not me. I havent made any edits in the article for the last 24 hours nor do I plan to do so (because the article is good and neutral as it is). Neutral and experienced editor like Dbachmann made good contributions and reviewed my edits as well as Khokhar. I no longer wish to edit the article on Indus, but I will contact other User to point out my differences. It is not me that K.Khokhar has problems with but many Indian Wikipedians and Indians (my opinion) see her talk page (if she did not erase). Also I don't want to be part of this Article any more as long as it stays how Dbachmann left it. I have no problem with changing it to South Asia from Indian Subcontinent. Afghanistan or Kamboja is part of the Indian Subcontinent as stated by most Pakistanis and scholars (written in Wiki article on Indian Subcontinent. So as I said no problem with changin it back to South Asia! Thankyou (Dewan 05:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

Sorry also: Some of the things she is showing of edit warring is me cleaning up what I did. The changes I made on things I wrote that I felt was not clear enough or things I missed. It is not that I changed anyone elses edits. It was my own that after I reread it again and again I rewrote to make it clear. The changes from South Asia to Indian Subcontinent sounded clear because from Indus = India and History of Indian Subcontinent. It is simple Pakistani Nationalism. But if you guys want to change it back to South Asia I have no problem. (Dewan 06:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Blcoked Khokhar. A check of contributions shows that combative reverting is his main activity on WP  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket! ) 06:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply
Quite sad that senior editors are actively engaging in clear and overt Pov pushing by supporting editors who hold views such as this and who make POV and false changes (last 24 hours) such as these,. All my edits were explained and are supported by sources, In the end it's wikipedia that loses out, not editors like myself as atleast we have our integrity intact. Khokhar (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You are fighting a loosing battle the Indian admin Monkey will always side with his fellow NRIs abroad the fact that the indian nationalist Dewan called you a "Paki" should be enough for a complete block maybe take your case to non Indian admins? 86.158.237.68 (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Dewan357 also removed the picture of Shalimar Gardens in the Mughal Empire page and replaced it with the one in disputed Jammu and Kashmir: showing another clear pov  Khokar I urge not to annoy Monkey or he will discuss you with other Indian users and track all your edits that’s what he did with users Yousaf and Adilyour he is not very fond of Pakistani editors keep calm and look for non Indian admins cheers and good luck 86.158.237.68 (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * User SikhHistory also canvassed for you to get blocked in Monkeys talk page you seriously need to get in touch with a admin (non Indian) and explain the ganging up which the Indian users are doing against you 86.158.237.68 (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yonteng aka 94.192.139.167 reported by Emptymountains (Result: Stale )

 * Page:
 * User:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 04:49, 21 August 2009 (edit summary: "")
 * 2nd revert: 08:11, 21 August 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 309233984 by Atisha's cook")
 * 3rd revert: 08:23, 21 August 2009 (edit summary: "same nkt goons-remember scientology!")


 * Diff of 3RR warning: and  and  and  and, today,.

To show that Yonteng is 94.192.139.167, please see in the archive: and  and  and.


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: . This user's past few edits on the talk page have been entirely unconstructive, especially . Emptymountains (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Warring has ceased. Reports of socking should go to WP:SPI] Nja 247 10:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob reported by Semitransgenic (Result: 3 weeks)

 * Article: Osho
 * Article: history
 * User:
 * User:

Off2riorob reverted the deletion of unreliably sourced material: 1

Deleted long standing reliably sourced material: 2

Deleted long standing reliably sourced material and added unreliably sourced material: 3

Reversion of above disputed edits: 4

Removes unsourced material but fails to reinstate long standing reliably sourced content: 5

Generally ignoring concensus building and long standing efforts made in adhering to WP:NPOV made by other editors. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I hardly think a report of edit warring is required, this is a content dispute, I have had plenty of discussion about my edits, all of which is there to read,  Just because some material is long standing as semi says doesn't make it worthwhile. In the end it was me who removed the disputed material  and I have clearly explained why the material I have removed is of no value. Off2riorob (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * this is the material that I have removed as worthless derogatory name calling from an unqualified person...


 * The Australian critic and cynic Clive James scornfully referred to him as "Bagwash", likening the experience of listening to one of his discourses to sitting in a laundrette and watching "your underwear revolve soggily for hours while exuding grey suds. The Bagwash talks the way that looks."[200] James finished by saying that Osho was just a "rebarbative dingbat who manipulates the manipulatable" Off2riorob (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Content Rob removed is taken from a work by Bob Mullan, a professor of sociology and psychology, he discussed the relevance of James's comments in his academic work Life as Laughter:following Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh in the context of it being exemplary of the kind of reception Osho received in wider society. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, in mullans book the comment can be ok, but not here in what could be likened to a summary of a book,in this case the comment adds nothing and as we are on a single page and not a whole book, then by adding a small worthless comment from a unqualified person, we have added undue weight and value to it, perhaps if we had 125 pages we could make a case for keeping it in, but we have one page, and as far as this wikipedia article goes, it is of no value> Off2riorob (talk) 18:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob refuses to read or even acknowledge policies such as WP:consensus and WP:NPOV. He seems to believe he has the right to excise anything he finds to be "contentious", and ignores or sidesteps any argument from policy. -Rrius (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nja 247 10:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Patriot Missile33 reported by User:UltraEdit (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

Patriot Missile33 keeps adding a disputed text without comments on the talk page. Viridae, an admin, stated here that the disputed text doesn't have a reliable source according to Wikipedia's guidelines. This editor also has several recent 3RR/Edit Warring warnings on his talk page for his edits to another article. UltraEdit (talk) 06:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Result - Warned. Patriot Missile has been warned that use of the Wikileaks reference may violate BLP policy, since it alleges serious crimes. The accusatory report is self-published by someone on the internet who claims to be the former lawyer for the organization. If Patriot continues to add it, he may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:C2SP reported by Dream Focus (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


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


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malwarebytes%27_Anti-Malware&diff=309518031&oldid=309517662
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malwarebytes%27_Anti-Malware&diff=309518464&oldid=309518306
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malwarebytes%27_Anti-Malware&diff=309519230&oldid=309518633
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malwarebytes%27_Anti-Malware&diff=309520142&oldid=309520081
 * 5th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malwarebytes%27_Anti-Malware&diff=309517477&oldid=309516395


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

If you look at the edit history and the talk page, you see that three editors have reverted him, and we have tried reasoning with him. He is determined to say "attempts to remove" instead of "remove." He previously reverted something similar twice before that,  insisting that it doesn't remove. I believe his behavior is quite disruptive.  D r e a m Focus  01:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Issue being discussed with another admin. Further, see the report directly below this one and my comments there. Nja 247 10:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Dream Focus reported by C2SP (Result: No vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


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


 * First revert: # 11:04, 15 August 2009 (edit summary: "how many millions of people received it, counts")
 * Second revert: # 11:18, 15 August 2009 (edit summary: "how long it takes someone to run something, is not relevant, he having a lot of files to scan.  See talk page for the rest, and discuss it there.")
 * Third revert: # 11:28, 15 August 2009 (edit summary: "revelent to how they make certain their software handles everything")
 * Fourth revert: # 00:41, 23 August 2009 (edit summary: "if it can find it, it can remove it.")
 * Fifth revert: # 00:47, 23 August 2009 (edit summary: "cleared it up a bit")
 * Sixth revert: # 00:48, 23 August 2009 (edit summary: "you have to list what the review said, not just take things out of context")
 * Seventh revert: # 00:49, 23 August 2009 (edit summary: "it does not attempt to remove anything.  It attempts to find, and then ALWAYS removes that")
 * Eigth revert: # 01:02, 23 August 2009 (edit summary: "stop reverting this")


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Sorry, new to Wikipedia, unknown that this could be done. I was using the talk page before edits and after.


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

If you notice the history this article has been highly reverted and edited due to Advertisements being placed on the page, refs pointing to forum posts and blog posts, etc. Dream Focus is the only current editor attempting to revive this old advertisement and I am one of many (from the past) attempting to keep the content neutral now. I did not revert anything added that would be considered solid information, if you notice which reverts I made, you will notice that I was merely trying to keep the verbiage balanced. I stated on the talk page that I was purposely looking for such verbiage to balance out the reception sections. I am not happy to allow anyone to post POVs nor AD like material, as I thought that was the rules. Furthermore, I recommend unofficially that this article be nominated for deletion and that Dream Focus be corrected for his behavior as I find it very unsettling.

This is my first time reporting a user, so I am sorry in advance if I did it wrong. C2SP (talk) 01:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The rule is you can not revert the same thing more than three times in a 24 hour period. Editing different unrelated sections during that time period doesn't count.   D r e a m Focus  02:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This edit is something totally unrelated. Here  I changed something, but it not reverting anything, I just fixing what was at the current version of the article, last edited by Schapel, removing the words "attempts to", since as I explained in my summary edit if the program can find it, it can remove it, there no "attempting".  That was my first edit of the day.  Nothing to do with the three reverts of C2SP found   and  I only reverted him three times in the 24 hour period.  The other edits mentioned were from other days, are unrelated.   D r e a m Focus  03:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: It is my every intention to *stop* warring on this page, regardless who started it. In the future I will try to be more diplomatic at my approach to making edits and will make every effort to go through all the proper channels before it comes to this again. Learning more everyday. C2SP (talk) 03:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * User seems to now be aware of edit warring policy. Thus, they should continue discussing the issue to work towards consensus. Should that fail, do not continue to edit war, rather seek dispute resolution or possibly page protection.. Nja 247 10:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Pedsnursing reported by User:Who then was a gentleman? (Result: 12h)

 * Page:

is repeatedly removing a section from the Doctorate in Nursing article. When challenged, they blank their Talk page and never discuss their edits. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Talk page warns and page edit history show pattern of edit warring. Short block to stop disruption and to ensure user is aware of policy and warning should give them guidance on how to better handle disputes in the future. Nja 247 10:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Diffs? Heimstern Läufer (talk)

User:RichPoynder reported by User:Nableezy (Result:24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Continually adding unsourced information to a BLP and editwarring to retain it.


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Tried to ask the user to not add poorly sourced OR to a BLP at User talk:RichPoynder.

nableezy  - 05:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Appears to be a clearcut vio with some BLP issues thrown in for good measure, so 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please note that a new screen name Judymiller2468 has materialized to carry out identical edits. See Sockpuppet investigations/Judymiller2468. I reverted his/her edits and was instantly reverted. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Schrandit reported by User:Outerlimits (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Fist one wasn't a revert, I removed a problematic sentence fragment that had been there for months. - Schrandit (talk) 05:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You both are equally edit warring. You should stop doing this immediately and instead use the talk page to work towards consensus. Should that fail, seek dispute resolution, or possibly page protection. Nja 247 10:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, not quite "equally". See . - Outerlimits (talk) 05:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That would appear to be his fourth revert in just under 24h. Can I just add that the content the two of you are squabbling over is really not worth squabbling over in this way, however?  user: J  aka justen (talk) 05:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Ameebact reported by User:Straight Edge PXK (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * 1) 17:50, 23 August 2009  (edit summary: "/* History */")
 * 2) 17:50, 23 August 2009  (edit summary: "/* Geography */")
 * 3) 17:50, 23 August 2009  (edit summary: "/* Education */")
 * 4) 17:51, 23 August 2009  (edit summary: "/* History */")
 * 5) 17:51, 23 August 2009  (edit summary: "/* Demographics */")
 * 6) 17:51, 23 August 2009  (edit summary: "/* Places of worship */")
 * 7) 17:52, 23 August 2009  (edit summary: "/* Transportation */")
 * 8) 17:52, 23 August 2009  (edit summary: "/* Prominent People */")
 * 9) 17:52, 23 August 2009  (edit summary: "/* Demographics */")
 * 10) 18:14, 23 August 2009  (edit summary: "/* History */")
 * 11) 18:14, 23 August 2009  (edit summary: "/* Prominent People */")
 * 12) 18:16, 23 August 2009  (edit summary: "/* Places of worship */")
 * 13) 18:16, 23 August 2009  (edit summary: "/* Places to visit */")

User is repeatedly changing article despite warnings and reversions. Previously edited under an IP (See the SPI case)  Jordan Payne  T <font color="DarkBlue">/C  18:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Dougweller has already protected the page, however, since most of these edits were vandalism, I've also blocked User:Ameebact for 48 hours. Shell  babelfish 21:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Radiopathy reported by User:Dayewalker (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (Technopat's discussion on Radiopathy's page),  (My discussion on Radiopathy's page)

Radiopathy and Technopat were having a disagreement on the page as to whether a detail about Withers working on toilet seats was trivial and worthy of inclusion, Techopat took the discussion to RP's talk page. RP began to make 3RR warnings , then threatened him with a block and told him any further talk page posts would be reported to ANI.

I saw the edits and good faith warned both of them they were at 3RR, and that this discussion should really be taken to the article's talk page to determine consensus instead of edit warring. Radiopathy responded by telling me I had "no right to get involved" and threatened me with an ANI thread. He then reverted my edit on the page, referring to it as "vandalism". Dayewalker (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I told Dayewalker he had no right to get involved "in a retaliatory content dispute", which goes back to disputes he fabricated at Barack Obama and Paint It, Black. His motives are hardly in good faith, and this complaint should just be disregarded.  <font color="#006600">R <font color="#0D8147">ad <font color="#009966">io <font color="#009999">pa <font color="#1E99CC">th <font color="#67B2DE ">y  •talk•   18:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours Also, warned Technopat against any further reverting. Shell   babelfish 21:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Introman reported by The Four Deuces (talk) (Result:24 hours )
. : Time reported: 18:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

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


 * 1) 17:59, 22 August 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "just moved portion of sentence into separate sentence")
 * 2) 17:59, 22 August 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 18:15, 22 August 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Little debate over a fundamental definition of capitalism")
 * 4) 18:23, 22 August 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverting disruptive edit removing sourced info")
 * 5) 18:31, 22 August 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverting disruptive edit removing sourced info.   (It was also removed with no explanation whatsoever)")
 * 6) 21:27, 22 August 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "If you want to delete that, then this needs to be delete as well, as not to present in accurate or biased picture")
 * 7) 17:34, 23 August 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "It's sourced and the body of the article represents it. Everyone agrees that capitalism includes private ownership, markets, and paid labor.")
 * 8) 18:12, 23 August 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Don't give false edit summaries. It's not true that it's agreed to. I don't agree to it.")


 * Diff of warning: here


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

—The Four Deuces (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours Shell  babelfish 21:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Kehz99 reported by User:Contimm (Result:No violation)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert: Note: Kehz99 is also IP address 67.191.237.201.
 * 3rd revert:


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Attempted Resolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lagos#August_2009_Edits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kehz99 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:67.191.237.201 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Contimm


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

Contimm (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No violation. Please use the talk page of the article to work out any differences of opinion, or see WP:DR for other ideas. Shell   babelfish 21:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Kehz99 reported by User:Contimm (Result:Both editors blocked)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6h revert:


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kehz99, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Contimm

Contimm (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Shell  babelfish 21:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Rm125 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result:Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

User:Rm125 made his four reverts within a 26-hour period, but he is edit-warring nonetheless. — Malik Shabazz 20:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Shell  babelfish 21:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:99.232.10.224 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: 24 hour block )

 * Page:
 * User:

Complicated, but all edit sequences add links to the same inappropriate google and YouTube videos.


 * 1st revert: 07:34
 * 2nd revert: 07:56
 * 3rd revert: 20:32
 * 4th revert: 20:40
 * 5th revert: 20:47
 * 6th revert: 20:56


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 20:47

May be the same as, in which case he's been more than adequately warned. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Shell  babelfish 21:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Jemesouviens32 violation of 3RVV on Modern Buddhism (Result: Reporter and reportee 24 hour blocks)
After discussing the matter on talk:Buddhism, where i found only support for my opinion, i have merged the two articles Modern Buddhism and Buddhist modernism while fully preserving the (rather crude, i might add) content of Jemesouviens32's newly created page.

Beforehand I asked User:Jemesouviens32 to join the discussion on his talk page, which he did, but while gaining some support for the idea of having an article on the subject at all it is of course ridiculous to have two, which he seems to be failing to recognize. Finally i merged the two articles, which he by now has reverted four times after me reverting his revert 3 times. It is the first time that i am involved in this kind of edit war. If you will you can consider this as reporting myself as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andi 3ö (talk • contribs) 14:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have watched the discussion for a while and I must say that Jemesouviens32 is not being very civil - accusations of vandalism like this and breaching the third revert rule as seen in the article's history, also including vandalism accusations. My best answer would be to list the article for deletion. If there are good arguments to keep it, do so, if not, don't. Kotiwalo (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * for 24 hours. CIreland (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Alchaemia reported by User:Hexagon1 (Result: 24h )

 * Page: (Talk and History)
 * User:


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 23:13, 23 August 2009
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 09:41, 24 August 2009
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 12:32, 24 August 2009
 * 4th revert: Current revision as of 15:24, 24 August 2009

While basically every single one of mine and the other users' edit summaries when reverting Alchaemia refer to the talk page and the consensus which has been established there, Alchaemia has made limited to no progress there. The current consensus, established through a lengthy multi-user debate, holds us to the UN geoscheme on the template. Rather than debate this cordially like Turkish Flame on the talk page, Alchaemia has taken to edit warring.

Alchaemia is a year old editor with over a 1000 edits which has been warned and blocked repeatedly. He or she blatantly refuse to familiarise themselves with Wikipedia policy, and continues to be extremely incivil. A recent exchange on our talks is greatly indicative of their attitude (User_talk:Alchaemia and User_talk:Hexagon1). A block would be warranted in this case to protect the article and to remind the user that our policies are here for a reason. +Hexagon1 (t) 15:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 18:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

reported by csloat (Result: 24h)

 * Page: Nurse Nayirah
 * User:


 * 1st revert: 07:01, 24 August 2009
 * 2nd revert: 07:23, 24 August 2009
 * 3rd revert: 11:09, 24 August 2009
 * 4th revert: 11:16, 24 August 2009

User has a history of vandalism going back to January 2008; recently has begun trolling extensively on the Nurse Nayirah talk page, and making a host of changes to the article page against consensus based on obviously specious arguments. His talk page is filled with warnings, and he was warned again before his most recent edit. He was also reported earlier to WP:AN/I when it became clear to me that he was going to be a significant problem. It's clear that some sort of administrative intervention will be necessary. csloat (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 18:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Reported this earlier today, but report was removed because it wasn't deemed credible, and was not in the proper format . Whether on procedural grounds or in order to allow for different viewpoints, the dismissal of the initial report concerns me. This was clearly a case of prolonged edit warring with personal attacks, and may eventually warrant a request for page protection. Glad it has been revisited. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Natzfan reported by User:Loonymonkey (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

--Loonymonkey (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Shell  babelfish 22:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

User:AlexBeales reported by User:Gold Scratch (Result: both blocked)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Please see discussion on user's talk page and also in the edit summaries for the article.

I have warned the user and debated with them extensively but they have just continued to revert and have even sworn at me. Gold Scratch (talk) 23:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Both blocked for 24h by another admin (unknown whether he'd seen this report). The edit war, about a comma, had seen both editor hit 48 reverts each.  Now that's dedication. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 23:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was gonna add this to WP:LAME. But looks like you read my mind. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 00:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed it again now, given the extra info on WP:ANI. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 00:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Commodore Sloat reported by User:165.166.14.146 (Result: Reporting user blocked)

 * Page: Nurse Nayirah
 * User:
 * User:
 * User:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nurse_Nayirah&diff=309251147&oldid=309246670


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nurse_Nayirah&diff=308933153&oldid=306624701
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nurse_Nayirah&diff=309265055&oldid=309254335
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nurse_Nayirah&diff=309785639&oldid=309785035
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nurse_Nayirah&diff=309822584&oldid=309822048
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nurse_Nayirah&diff=309823646&oldid=309822971
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nurse_Nayirah&diff=309827484&oldid=309823738
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nurse_Nayirah&diff=309833722&oldid=309832232

I had complained about their vandalism of the page on the other noticeboards for their transgressions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Nurse_Nayirah

And I tried to resolve the dispute on the discussion page but no one responded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nurse_Nayirah

I was setup! My article was tag-teamed by vandals including one wikipedia administrator. When I was composing my complaint on this page I was suddenly told that I was blocked from editing for the 3rr which does not apply to protecting from vandalism. Especially in the case of tag teaming, which means he reverted three times first.

Then they smear me on this page for edits that have nothing to do with me. I access this website from public computers. I am owed an apology from Nja247. And I would appreciate the revocation of administrator status so as to prevent further abuses.

Courtesy.Arlabon (talk) 02:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Courtesy.Arlabon looks like a sockpuppet. Any thoughts? <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 02:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * IP blocked. Courtesy.Arlabon, the same person as User:165.166.14.146, is clearly the one edit-warring&mdash;s/he has been reverted by as many as 4 editors. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 02:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

User:99.232.10.224 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result:72 hours)
. : Time reported: 04:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Revert comparison ("compare"): 20:56, August 23, 2009 (diff from previous).

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


 * 1) 22:32, 24 August 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* 9/11 Related Activity */")
 * 2) 22:35, 24 August 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* 9/11 Related Activity */")
 * 3) 22:38, 24 August 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* 9/11 Related Activity */")
 * 4) 04:36, 25 August 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* 9/11 Related Activity */")
 * 5) 04:43, 25 August 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* 9/11 Related Activity */")


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 20:47

Comment: Just off a block for 3RR on this same article. Grumble. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Slow learner? Since 24 hours didn't seem to do it, let's try 72 this time. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Zhanzhao reported by User:Shshshsh (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * 1st revert: 03:37, 24 August 2009
 * 2nd revert: 13:23, 24 August 2009
 * 3rd revert: 13:55, 24 August 2009

User's edits also go against WP:MOSFILM - which was cited on his talk page and which he refuses to accept. The user has been on Wikipedia for almost two years and was already blocked for edit warring in the past - so he is aware of the rules. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  14:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually so has the complanant was blocked for edit warring in the past multiple times, and in that particular case I was blocked, he was the other party. Don't mind me if I tend to take his warnings with a pinch of salt.Zhanzhao (talk) 02:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How is that related here? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  11:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Result - Warned. The material comparing two films that Zhanzhao wants to add to Zinda (film) seems to be against the dictates of WP:MOSFILM. There were only three reverts by this editor, but that doesn't excuse him from the duty to follow consensus. If he continues to add this material, he may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

User:112.201.186.196 reported by User: (Result: 24h )

 * Page:
 * User:

Explained separately


 * 1st revert: 05:53 (summary includes "undo")
 * 2nd revert: 06:43 (restoring information deleted 06:31)
 * 3rd revert: 06:59 (summary includes "undo")
 * 4th revert: 07:19 (summary includes undo)


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 07:09
 * <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 18:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Sourside21 reported by User:Caspian blue (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 2009-08-07T08:14:59


 * Pre-1st revert 2009-08-07T12:35:33 by KORNET.NET
 * Pre-2nd revert 2009-08-10T01:17:59 same above
 * Pre-3rd revert 2009-08-07T12:35:33 same above
 * 1st revert: 2009-08-20T18:51:53
 * 2nd revert: 2009-08-23T15:10:01 by (KORNET.NET)
 * 3rd revert: 2009-08-24T11:15:26
 * 4th revert: 2009-08-24T12:37:45
 * 5th revert: 2009-08-24T13:45:05
 * 6th revert: 2009-08-25T12:45:45


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:South_Korea

At 2009-08-07T12:35:33, began replacing the lead locater map, File:Locator map of South Korea.svg with File:South Korea (orthographic projection).svg.. The anon reverted three times against several editors. Also another IP user, 121.177.14.129 shared the same POV with 221.160.224.197 and User:Sourside21. I suspect the anons who uses the same Kornet ISP are the same person as Sourside21. If you look at the timeline, Sourside21 is carefully measuring time slightly off from 3RR violation. However, if the anon is Sourside21, then he violated 3RR twice within 2 times. The user solely insists on using the orthographic projection as opposed to several editors (at least 5 editors). The user in question argues that he is the one who initiated the discussion on the dispute, and could not find any consensus for that. However, everyone except dubious anons do not agree with Sourside21, so he should have refrained from blindly reverting for his POV and waited. Unless he gets a consensus, he should stop tendentious edit warring and gaming the system.--Caspian blue 13:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * -- I hadn't even noticed this report (although I almost reported him myself yesterday), but just today he reverted again after I left an warning to both users at the talk page, and I blocked him. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 21:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Cool Stuff Is Cool reported by User:Baseball Bugs (Result: Blocked )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Pre-1st revert
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Cool Stuff Is Cool This is becoming a problem on several articles, discussed on his talk page.


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

Continual posting of what looks like racial POV-pushing, against consensus. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The "diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" doesn't quite look like such to me, but at least the user was warned at his user talk page. Also, this edit summary suggests that the user is hoping to game the system by edit warring without explicitly violating 3rr; the following revert by User:More correctly could be sockpuppeting or meatpuppeting (the account only has one other edit, on August 9), although I can't be sure. I'd recommend blocking both accounts for a day or so, but I'd like another set of eyes on this as well. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 23:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would support 24 hours to Cool Stuff since he is making a series of edits to different articles where he changes the names of census racial categories to terms he considers to be more idiomatic. Since these are highly politically sensitive terms, there is no benefit to taking this risk even if he could meet the tough burden of showing he is correct, and he clearly does not have consensus. For the second part of your question, I'm not convinced that More correctly should be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Shell  babelfish 06:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Mdabdul reported by Jayen466 (Result: 24 hours )
User:

Article:

Summary: A longstanding pattern of disruptive editing by SPA Mdabdul. These are many reverts spread out over several weeks, including 3 over the last 12 hours, always concerning the same points and returning the article to the same wording:
 * 1st revert
 * 2nd revert
 * 3rd revert
 * 4th revert
 * 5th revert
 * 6th revert
 * 7th revert 09:14, 24 August 2009
 * 8th revert 09:54, 25 August 2009
 * 9th revert 13:58, 25 August 2009
 * 10th revert 19:44, 25 August 2009 (edit)

The most recent of these edits deleted material sourced to the following RS publications:



A similar series of earlier reverts by the same user on a related issue:

This set of reverts deleted material sourced to sources including the following:



Could an admin please have a word with the user and explain to him/her that it's not okay to keep deleting material that is adequately sourced, even if it is unflattering to the BLP subject? The New York Times calls this man "Narendra Modi, India’s most incendiary politician". According to the Times of India, he is currently under investigation by the Indian Supreme Court following allegations that he encouraged the 2002 Gujarat violence. There has to be some of that in the article for it to be credible. -- JN 466  20:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Related threads: WP:NPOVN Talk:Narendra_Modi  JN 466  21:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Clearly, this continued revert is edit warring the last, POV problems, isn't dealt with here; this editor does seem rather new and could probably use some help understanding how to go about things here. Shell   babelfish 06:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Okedem reported by Supreme Deliciousness (Result: Blocked )
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:


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


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

As you can see in the talkpage, me and one other supports adding it and several others are also trying to ad the info to the article, Okedem is the only reverting the info. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why nothing have happened here?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Shell  babelfish 06:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

User:Captain Infinity reported by User:99.146.98.54 (Result: IP blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff


 * 1st revert: diff
 * 2nd revert: diff
 * 3rd revert: diff
 * 4th revert: diff


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Comments:

99.146.98.54 (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Reporting user blocked. I love when edit warriors report themselves... <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 23:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

User:99.146.98.54 reported by User:Captain Infinity (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:


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


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

Comments:

Anon account, vandalism edits only, making changes to an Admin's page and edit warring. --Captain Infinity (talk) 23:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The user was already blocked, see the report above. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 23:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, everything happened all at once I guess. --Captain Infinity (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Jwh335 reported by User:Avraham (Result: 24h)
. : Time reported: 04:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 20:23, August 25, 2009

Diffs:
 * 1) 20:36, August 25, 2009
 * 2) 21:43, August 25, 2009
 * 3) 22:44, August 25, 2009
 * 4) 22:50, August 25, 2009
 * 5) 22:59, August 25, 2009


 * Diff of warning: here

-- Avi (talk) 04:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've blocked Jwh335 for 24 hours. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 05:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

94.192.139.167 reported by Emptymountains (Result: 1 month to the IP)

 * Page:
 * User:
 * aka User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 08:28, 21 August 2009


 * 1st revert: 04:48, 24 August 2009 (edit summary: "")
 * 2nd revert: 05:46, 24 August 2009 (edit summary: "")
 * 3rd revert: 03:31, 25 August 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 309754225 by Tim Song")

Please note that this is a continuation of last week's edit warring reported here:.

This editor keeps inserting the word cult into the lead section of the article. The reasons against such an inclusion have been discussed on the talk page:, but he is insistent. His methods continue to go against the advice of non-involved editors: and  and , whom he flat-out ignores.


 * Diff of 3RR warning: and  and  and  and.


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: . Emptymountains (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)(and his response .) User:Atisha& (talk) 09:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

comment - This comment is not meant to defend Yonteng's silly and obviously intolerable random addition of the word "cult" to the lead, but to give some general context. Although i often disapprove of Yonteng's style, i can perfectly understand his frustration as it is very hard to get any results on the NKT related pages. Almost all of the editors are NKT affiliated and fight ferociously (including taking turns in reverting) to prevent criticism - or what appears to them to be critical or unfavourable - from entering "their" pages. If it was left to them, the NKT-article would consist of merely an exact copy of the NKT's own publicity material. This behaviour at least does come across as a bit cult-like from time to time... To be fair though, there have been times in the history of that article when it was the other way round and critical views were very dominant in the article. Also, User:Emptymountains, from my experience, is the most reasonable of the NKT-affiliated editors, striving for compromises and a more NPOV in difficult discussions. Andi 3ö (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - IP editor blocked 1 month. It is understandable that some admins may have lost patience due to the many complaints about New Kadampa Tradition, but this issue seems like a pure form of silly edit warring about the word 'cult', which the IP insists belongs in the article instead of the word 'organization'. It is believed that the IP is actually User:Yonteng who for some reason has not used his registered account since June, when he was given a two-week block. The IP was also last blocked for two weeks, so now it is increased to one month. I realize that an indef for Yonteng and an SPI filing might be the next step. EdJohnston (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

User:192.87.123.159/User:Another avatar reported by User:Boleyn (Result: Semi)


Continued edit warring on Henry, Holy Roman Emperor, via IP addresses (three times) since main account (Another avator) was blocked. Boleyn (talk) 09:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Has done this again since I left this message. I really feel the page needs protection. Boleyn (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This person 77.176.130.22 / Boleyn is vandalizing my pages. She should be stopped. I hereby apply for an admin ship. I have far more edits and articles than her under my various usernames 192.87.123.159 (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - Semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

User:86.134.95.215 reported by User:Doniago (Result: Semi'd)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:
 * 10th revert:
 * 11th revert:
 * 12th revert:


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Multiple IP's originating from the same ISP have made the exact same set of edits repeatedly. Edit summaries have not been provided, EW (and other) warnings have been ignored. If this isn't sufficient for action, please let me know what additional steps I should take. Doniago (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Too big for a range-block - article protected for a month. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 17:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Kalifat reported by User:Gaius Octavius Princeps (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:


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


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

Comments:

<Have attempted to reason with user, who continues to ignore and revert. nazism is illegal in germany, if npd were neo-nazi they would be illegal, the sources which claim that they are are fine, but this is not proven nor factual and as such should not be included as fact. The article should mention these claims (of neo-nazi connections) but in a neutral manner and not the factual as kalifat is insisting. >

Two sided edit-war. I am assuming the reporting editor is also 87.115.157.224, both a very close to 3RR. Please use the talkpage. Page protected for a week, blocks will be issued if reverting begins again after protection expires. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 18:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

sorry, but where did princeps really tried to reason with me? please take a look at the talk page. he accused me of stating that the npd are neonazis. i have never said or edited this. i provided facts from different sources - even from the npd itself - that document their endorsement and cooperation with neonazis, nothing else. no labeling them as neonazis themselves. the user didn't even understand the sources, since they are in german. but he nevertheless first refuted the amount of sources (link spam), afterwards because they supposedly don't state what i wrote, and after that refuted their neutrality. all via the edit reasons, not via talk page, where i already tried to reason with him. he then went on to accuse me of calling the npd neonazis and then went on to here. sorry, but this is a protection of a whitewashing attempt, where princeps never discussed the content of my edits. he dind't even notify me. Kalifat (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

User:UweBayern reported by User:Piotrus (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Discussion on talk: Talk:Federation_of_Expellees

Comments:


 * User is clearly edit warring on this and a few other pages, but has not been warned about it and as far as I can tell hasn't gotten any messages inviting him to join the discussion Piotrus started. (The "diff of edit warring" is actually a warning from a different incident a couple months ago.) I am leaving him a warning now; if he continues reverting after being properly warned don't hesitate to re-report him (another message in this thread will do) and he can be blocked temporarily. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 18:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Critical Mind reported by User:Singularity42 (Result: )
Page: (and related articles)

User being reported:

There are two or three seperate edit wars:


 * The first started when Critical Mind started to make changes at Yakub (Nation of Islam), to put his own POV spin on the article. His edits were reverted by other experienced editors.


 * A disambiguation page was then created at Yakub. This is the diff of the original version:


 * Critical Mind changed the disambiguation page to his original POV edits from the other article: . This was reverted by a different editor:


 * Critical Mind made the same type of changes again: . This was reverted by a different editor:.


 * Critical Mind made the same type of changes again: . This was reverted by the same editor as before: .  A warning was placed on his talk page page:.


 * Critical Mind vandalized the disambiguation page: . I reverted it: . I also placed a warning on his talk page:.


 * Critical Mind creates a new article with his original POV edits: Yakub (Elijah Muhammad), and adds it to the disambiguation page:.


 * Another editor nominates the new article for speedy deletion: . I then remove the link from the disambiguation page: . I also warn Critical Mind about the speedy deletion:.


 * Critical Mind reverts:


 * I revert: . I also realize there is now an edit war, and I place a warning on Critical Mind's talk page:


 * Despite the warning, Critical Mind reverts again:


 * In the meantime, Critical Mind puts the article he initally had problems with up for speedy deletion as a hoax: . This obviously doesn't meet the criteria, and I remove the template and explain to him on his talk page that he should review the speedy deletion policy.


 * Critical Mind gives a rant on my talk page, and puts back the speedy deletion template.

Singularity42 (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Update: Yakub (Elijah Muhammad) has been deleted. Therefore, some of the diffs above may no longer work. Singularity42 (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Update 2: dab has apparantely placed Critical Mind on a three-hour block and is monitoring the situation. Therefore, I don't believe this report is needed anymore. Singularity42 (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments:


 * I have already taken action while Singularity42 was compiling this.
 * I have issued a short (3 hours) cool down block to the user, along with a request to read up on policy, and especially WP:3RR. If user resumes his behaviour after the block expires, sanctions should be on the assumption that he is aware of policy.
 * I will not be monitoring the situation three hours from now, so it may make sense to keep this listed for now. --dab (𒁳) 20:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

User:LSG280709 reported by SKATER  Speak. (Result: 55h)
. : Time reported: 22:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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

The user has been blocked once for edit warring, is currently reported at Wp:AIV and has left me an undeserved warning. — SKATER  Speak. 22:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 22:23, 26 August 2009  (edit summary: "Reverted POV and vandalism to last good version")
 * 2) 22:24, 26 August 2009  (edit summary: "false positive")
 * 3) 22:26, 26 August 2009  (edit summary: "rv")
 * 4) 22:30, 26 August 2009  (edit summary: "rv")
 * 5) 22:32, 26 August 2009  (edit summary: "rv")
 * 6) 22:34, 26 August 2009  (edit summary: "RV")
 * 7) 22:44, 26 August 2009  (edit summary: "RV")
 * Blocked for 55 hours by Kralizec!. <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 03:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

User:LineofWisdom reported by User:Jéské Couriano (Result:no block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Dispute is on user talk page; see comments

Comments: I have twice requested that LineofWisdom stop posting on my talk page after shi started making references to mine and an unrelated user's families; shi has thus far refused to listen and I've been removing further comments from hir from the page. -<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 07:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

x2 I dispute this. LoW is not adding further comments, he is re-adding the same comment, and doing so is harassment. Jeremy has a right to remove things from his page.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  07:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * LoW is indeed edit warring and could be blocked for a 3RR violation. For now, I'm leaving it at Killiondude's warning below and going with no block. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Jéské Couriano reported by LineofWisdom (Result:no vio)
Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J%C3%A9sk%C3%A9_Couriano

User being reported:

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

]
 * 1st revert: [07:35, August 27, 2009 Jéské Couriano (Talk | contribs) m (144,933 bytes) (Reverted edits by LineofWisdom (talk) to last version by Jéské Couriano) (undo)
 * 2nd revert: [07:32, August 27, 2009 Jéské Couriano (Talk | contribs) m (144,933 bytes) (Reverted edits by LineofWisdom (talk) to last version by Jéské Couriano) (undo) ]

] ]
 * 3rd revert: [ 07:28, August 27, 2009 Jéské Couriano (Talk | contribs) m (144,933 bytes) (Reverted edits by LineofWisdom (talk) to last version by Jéské Couriano) (undo)
 * 4th revert: [ 07:21, August 27, 2009 Jéské Couriano (Talk | contribs) m (144,933 bytes) (Reverted edits by LineofWisdom (talk) to last version by Jéské Couriano) (undo)

Comments:

He is keep on reverting my remakrs against his derogatory remarks on his talk-page. LineofWisdom (talk) 07:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Chummer, I'm allowed to remove comments from my talk page, particularly if I've told the user making them to stop posting on it. -<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 07:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Chummer, are you alloweed to use "Fuck" as a remark against other user? --LineofWisdom (talk) 07:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you have preferred the much harsher Shadowrun iteration of the term "stop talking to me"? Since you seemed to have ignored me telling you politely the first time to stop posting to my talk page... -<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 07:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * LoW, please just drop this. You have no reason to be edit warring over somebody else's talk page. If Jeske wants to remove something from his talk page, he can. Your persistence in reverting that removal won't be tolerated. See WP:EW and WP:HARASSMENT. Consider this your last warning. Killiondude (talk) 07:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I never knew that one can delete something from its Talk Page. Anyhow, thanks for warning me. Regards, --LineofWisdom (talk) 08:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * His talk page, not it.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  08:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * He seems a counter-bot to me, so its :-) Just joking. Thanks for speedy correction, dude. --LineofWisdom (talk) 08:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Closing as no violation as reverts in the userspace are exempt. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Noergler reported by User:MishMich (Result: warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 12:51, 26 August 2009
 * 2nd revert: 14:55, 26 August 2009
 * 3rd revert: 10:13, 27 August 2009
 * 4th revert: 16:44, 27 August 2009

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user:Noergler, despite being warned that they had reverted 3 times in 24 hours proceeded to revert again to a version that has no clear consensus, uses language that is not NPOV and is unsourced, despite attempts by two editors to accommodate a criticism section using NPOV language. Mish (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Appears to be new; warned William M. Connolley (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Munroe Falls, Ohio (Result: Semi)
There appears to be a single editor using multiple accounts to avoid 3RR by a single account at Munroe Falls, Ohio — despite obvious consensus at talk in favor of removing part of the Education section, all removals have been undone by an IP or one of several newly-registered users. See today's history: Beirne, JonRidinger, and I have tried to remove this part, but we've been undone by IPs 71.64.103.117 and 74.219.162.202 and by Batcountry13 and Poenam dare44. I strongly suspect that 71.64.103.117 (who has hit 3RR, but not passed it; see, , and ) and Poenam are the same editor: in this edit to talk, the IP calls himself/herself an "anonymous contributor of relevant and accurate information", and the entire contents of Poenam's userpage are "This user always strives to provide accurate and relevant information." I don't know about Batcountry or the other IP, but these similarities between the first IP and Poenam make it clear to me that this edit is a violation of 3RR. I suppose I could block, as I'm an admin and WP:3RR states "Note that any administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring", but I'd rather make it clear that I'm not blocking simply because of a content dispute. Nyttend (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly certain that User:Batcountry13 is also the same one as his edits were of the exact same nature. My experience with this editor on other related pages is that he frequently jumps back and forth between his anonymous name and several other usernames that are used once or twice.  My reversions have all been under the guidelines of WP:USCITY.  --JonRidinger (talk) 00:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that both the IP and Poenam claim to have lived in Munroe Falls. Nyttend (talk) 00:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I just realised that I've hit — but not passed — 3RR now; JonRidinger hit it some time ago. I'm not going to do any more reverts, and I've urged him to do likewise.  Nyttend (talk) 00:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - Semiprotected due to the strong likelihood of socking. Please continue to work toward a consensus on the talk page. If agreement cannot be reached, consider an article WP:RFC. No objection to anyone opening a complaint at WP:SPI. EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Tallicfan20 reported by User:Nableezy (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert: reverts this edit
 * 3rd revert: reverts this edit
 * 4th revert: reverts this edit
 * 5th revert: reverts this
 * 6th revert: again same as above
 * 7th revert: again removes goal of liberation of Palestine.
 * 8th revert: reverts this edit (added after report opened)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Multiple times

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Palestinian political violence

<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#C11B17">nableezy  - 15:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry I fight for REAL NPOV, and do not think that phrasing, OBVIOUS POV phrasing like "These acts are generally intended to advance the cause of Palestinian liberation, and have been variously directed toward" is acceptable. And I made compromises in the end and used the talk page. Who is anyone to say what "general intentions" are? Without stated causes, I have put on earlier, there IS POV that Tiamut and Nableezy have tried to add to the page. OK I'll compromise further with "Palestinian liberation." But this is in good faith, not POV pushing.Tallicfan20 (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, let me show what Nableezy wants "You still removed "liberation of Palestine". That is the primary goal of all these groups." he said. Who is he to say that ONLY HE KNOWS what the true goal of the groups are. You can all see the compromise I made on the page.Tallicfan20 (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Palestinian Liberation Organization, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine. But that is a content question and not really relevant here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#C11B17">nableezy  - 16:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * you're mentioning names. The interpretation of such is on those pagesTallicfan20 (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

48h William M. Connolley (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

User:YgoFan90 reported by User:Bill (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

These aren't all the reverts that this user has done, just some of the most recent.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (This isn't the article talk page, it's the user's talk page. Three users have attempted discussion on the user's talk page with no real response. The link goes to a revision with all the recent discussions.)

Comments:

I, and 2 other users have attempted discussion with this user over the content of their edits without getting anywhere. They won't make any attempt to read the guidelines or engage in discussion. --Bill (talk 20:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The user seems to have good intent, but will not wait until discussions are over, and is adding fan-speculated titles and classification to episodes. His other edits are also overly-detailed and very fan-crufty . BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 21:15, 28 August 2009(UTC)
 * He refuses to listen to other users, and is being ignorant about all the information given to him, even though it obviously states what he is doing wrong. Mokoniki | talk 22:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The user has been commented by many editors but those refuses to listen, and keeps editng what he wants, which gets no where. --<font color="Orange">Pedro J. the rookie 22:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I AM NOT BEING FAN-CRUFTY! IT'S A LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!--YgoFan90 (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I AM NOT BEING FAN-CRUFTY! IT'S A LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!--YgoFan90 (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am here as completely 100% uninvolved with any of these editors.
 * Per WP:Fancruft:
 * While "fancruft" is often a succinct and frank description of such accumulations, it also implies that the content is unimportant and that the contributor's judgment of the topic's importance is clouded by fanaticism. Thus, use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil.
 * Please strike any accusations of fancruft.
 * YgoFan90, yelling (ALL CAPS) does not convince anyone of anything.Ikip (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I AM NOT BEING FAN-CRUFTY!--YgoFan90 (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See above. Ygofan90. Ikip (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I AM NOT BEING FAN-CRUFTY.--YgoFan90 (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I AM NOT BEING FAN-CRUFTY. AND THIS DISCUSSION IS COMPLETELY ONE-SIDED.--YgoFan90 (talk)
 * Don't prove what everyone else is saying, stop yelling. Ikip (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The above list of reversions is incorrect, it misses one reversion of Ygofan90, it is out of order (putting 28th before 27th), and it ignores Mokoniki reversions. In addition there is no mention of warning YgoFan90 of 3rr.


 * YgoFan90 1st revert: 23:23, 27 August 2009
 * YgoFan90 2nd revert: 23:07, 27 August 2009
 * YgoFan90 3rd revert: 23:15, 27 August 2009
 * YgoFan90 4th revert: 23:07, 27 August 2009
 * YgoFan90 5th revert: 17:26, 28 August 2009
 * YgoFan90 6th revert: 20:08, 28 August 2009
 * YgoFan90 7th revert: 20:20, 28 August 2009


 * Mokoniki 1st revert: 23:08, 27 August 2009
 * Mokoniki 2nd revert: 23:19, 27 August 2009
 * Mokoniki 3rd revert: 20:30, 27 August 2009
 * Mokoniki 4th revert: 23:08, 27 August 2009
 * Mokoniki 5th revert: 19:34, 28 August 2009
 * Mokoniki 6th revert: 20:11, 28 August 2009


 * Mokoniki revert (of anon) 00:42, 29 August 2009

Ikip (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You are not helping in the situation by yelling, may i remind you you are on thin ice. --<font color="Orange">Pedro J. the rookie 17:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My intention was not to be incivil. Many of the edits are only supported by fan-based speculation rather than official information confirmed by third-party source, or even the original source. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 17:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Do not worry about your intenction it was not uncivil, BB08, it is the way he recats to this that is uncivil. --<font color="Orange">Pedro J. the rookie 17:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I requested Mr. Johnston to block, or at least warn Mokoniki of his edit warring. I am disappointed the way that User:YgoFan90 handled this case. As another editor and I wrote on YgoFan90's talk page, YgoFan90 probably could have gotten away with a warning if it wasn't for YgoFan90's behavior here. Ikip (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My action was due to YgoFan90 being completely unwilling to respond to the concerns about his edits, and his belligerence here at AN3. If other admins think other editors should be sanctioned as well due to the count of their reverts, they may do so. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Uriburu reported by User:Binksternet (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link
 * 1st revert: diff
 * 2nd revert: diff
 * 3rd revert: diff
 * 4th revert: diff

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

Comments:

This user seems to have some good ideas about what to put in the article but his English is not comprehensible. His sources can be used to add a section about foil resistor history to the page, once someone with the proper English skills takes a look at them, and brings in other sources for balance and breadth. Binksternet (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The user has not reverted the article since his warning about the 3RR. Hopefully a block won't be necessary, but let's keep watching. Papa November (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - 24 hours. Editor has continued to revert after the warning. EdJohnston (talk) 08:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

User:KingDigg reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: Stale )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Minor variations in phrasing.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This is a long-running dispute over the insertion of an unsourced, contentious claim into a BLP. The substantive content issue has been discussed, repeatedly, on the article's talk page, with no resolution. In the absence of reliable sources, there is consensus that BLP prevents the claim from being included in the article, and it has been regularly removed by multiple editors.

Comments:

Given the similarity of the edits, it is likely that some or all of the related IP edits today were also made by this editor, an SPA whose only edits relate to this claim. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 20:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

User:LauBJensen reported by LotLE × talk (Result:no action)
Page: Three-revert rule violation on. User: : Time reported: 06:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 08:41, 26 August 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 309519653 by Allan McInnes (talk)")
 * 2) 05:39, 27 August 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 06:00, 27 August 2009  (edit summary: "First off, thats most likely not your call 2 make. Secondly you'll find references on the site, among others Denmarks largest Energy company.")
 * 4) 06:17, 27 August 2009  (edit summary: "Please try to keep personal oppinion seperate from information - If Clojure is used in industry, its used in industry.")
 * 5) 09:52, 28 August 2009  (edit summary: "Undid edit based on incorrect perception. See talk-page for more.")
 * 6) 22:35, 28 August 2009  (edit summary: "Please see talk page.")
 * 7) 06:07, 29 August 2009  (edit summary: "Undoing previous edits not based on facts")
 * 8) 06:10, 29 August 2009  (edit summary: "Added reference for Clojure")
 * 9) 06:34, 29 August 2009  (edit summary: "Added reference for Clojure")
 * 10) 06:52, 29 August 2009  (edit summary: "Reverted to last known good edit")

— LotLE × talk 06:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Because the two first reverts on the 29th are consecutive edits, I don't think there's a technical 3RR vio here; however, this is clearly edit warring regardless of status re:3RR. I would be quick to block except that it looks to me like there's been no revert since the editor was warned. I'd be inclined to leave this as is for now, but would definitely block if the editor reverts again. Leaving this open for now in case another admin or the reporter has any further input. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

User:89.129.35.2 reported by User:RedCoat10 (Result: 24h )
Page:

User:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * 4th revert:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP refuses to discuss the matter on the talk page and insists on reverting. Needs to cool down. RedCoat10 •  talk  19:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 20:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

User:74.243.221.59 reported by User:Benlisquare (Result: 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: - warnings on IP editor's talk page, all blanked

Comments:


 * IP editor is failing to understand that under WP:MOS, "ROC" is "ROC", and is intent on adding "(Taiwan)" after every incidence, as well as POVed edits, such as noting that "Taiwan is a country", when Taiwan is an island of the ROC (not the PRC, although it is claimed as thus), under Taiwan Province. Refer to edit history: many personal attacks against myself and other editors, and vandalism on my userpage and other userpages. Also made POVed edits to Taiwan, Two Chinas. Frequently blanks his talk page when warned numerous times, refer to talk page history and the IP editor's contributions. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 03:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia administrators,

Please note that the above user User:Benlisquare has been vandalising the pages of Taiwan and the Republic of China with pro-People's Republic of China propaganda when it is supposed to be the pages of Taiwan, Republic of China and NOT a page about the People's Republic of China and then tries to create controversy by trying to label us as bad guys. The truth speaks for itself!

Additionally, User:Zhang He has recently tried to erase my previous statement in a really unprofessional and uncivilised attempt at trying to silence us! Just look at the history logs

And to User:Onorem, despite the fact we may disagree about certain things I would like to thank you for defending my rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.243.221.59 (talk) 04:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.243.221.59 (talk) 04:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * User was warned by several people, yet continued. -- slakr \ talk / 04:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

User:PopMusicWillNeverBeLowBrow reported by Pcdfan678 (talk) (Result: Stale )
Page: User: : Time reported: 16:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

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


 * 1) 23:43, 28 August 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "I'm not sure what you mean by "habillie" or "mairde" but she says "J'adore Vivienne I really want", "and oh", and "Madame love them Jimmy Choo" in those places.")
 * 2) 01:34, 29 August 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Type "lady gaga fashion lyrics" into google, and every site will say the same thing. Also just to note, the only word close to "mairde" is "merde" which mean "sh*t".")
 * 3) 02:29, 29 August 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "You're wrong, furthermore even if it is slightly in French, that part does not meet WP:N or WP:SONG. Also if you revert again, I will report you for violating WP:3RR and have you blocked.")
 * 4) 10:23, 29 August 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 310649498 by Lil-unique1 (talk) RV unproductive edits")

—Pcdfan678 (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

The fourth edit is completely unrelated to this discussion. And if you look at the revision history, this user also reverted edits three times, hence violating the 3RR. In other words, it's "the pot calling the kettle black" in this case. Also there have been discussions (including the fourth edit though unrelated) at User talk:PopMusicWillNeverBeLowBrow, User talk:Pcdfan678, and User talk:Lil-unique1. Also check User talk:Pcdfan678 for a list of the three edits that this user and I each made.  Pop Music Buff <sup style="color:black;">talk  19:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I dont think you understand the rules. you get 3 reverts and anything beyond that is a violation with some acceptions. even if the 4th wasnt related, thats still 4 reverts in less than 24 hours. Pcdfan678 (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not "anything beyond [3 reverts] is a violation", implying that 4 and above is a violation, but 3 and above, which you have also done. WP:3RR says "It states that a user who makes more than three revert actions (of any kind) on any one page within a 24 hour period, may be considered to be edit warring, and blocked appropriately".  Pop Music Buff <sup style="color:black;">talk  20:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Please also note this editor's obvious attempt with Edit 1 and Edit 2, as he attempts to "suck up" to an admin in accordance with WP:3RR where it says "If an editor breaks the three-revert rule by mistake, they should reverse their own most recent reversion. Administrators may take this into account and decide not to block in such cases, for example if the user is not a habitual edit warrior and appears to be genuinely trying to rectify their own mistake." This is not a mistake at all, as I'm hoping admins will realize. Including these, that's 5 RV's in a 24-hour period this user has made for the page.  Pop Music Buff <sup style="color:black;">talk  21:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

you dont understand the rules of 3rr!!! you bold worded 'three revert actions' but missed where it says 'more than'. also, that other revert of mine, that was a genuine mistake of mine that i changed quickly. how dare you assume that it wasnt when you dont even know! even if you would like to count that even tho it was an honest mistake, thats only four because reverting you're own edits doesnt count. maybe you should look in to policies a little better, and stop trying to point you're fingers at me when your in the wrong and you know it. Pcdfan678 (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 08:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

User:86.143.22.205 reported by User:Mokoniki (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st Revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bichon_Fris%C3%A9&diff=310805001&oldid=310693579
 * 2nd Revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bichon_Fris%C3%A9&diff=310805001&oldid=310753263
 * 3rd Revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bichon_Fris%C3%A9&diff=310805001&oldid=310804440

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

I know you're supposed to have 4 reverts to violate the rule, so I was going to wait, but then I decided to report the user for edit warring anyway, after they made 2 personal attacks to my talk page.





Two other users reverted the edits, yet my talk page was the only one to get vandalized. Mokoniki | talk 13:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 14:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Rain City Blues reported by User:Vary (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 23:10, August 29, 2009


 * 1st revert: 02:45, August 30, 2009
 * 2nd revert: 05:09, August 30, 2009
 * 3rd revert: 14:43, August 30, 2009
 * 4th revert: 15:55, August 30, 2009

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 15:34, August 30, 2009 acknowledged 15:40, August 30, 2009 and blanked 15:46, August 30, 2009

link to talk page discussion

Note, editor has one brief prior block for edit warring on a BLP. -- Vary (Talk) 16:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

User:71.139.27.252 reported by User:Impala2009 (Result: Future action possible if Talk page is not used)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This IP user persistently reverts back my edits without leaving notes on the talk page. Chevy  Impala   2009  18:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * These reverts are over a period of almost two weeks, it seems. Rather than blocking (judging by your comments to J. delanoy, it looks like this person is using multiple IPs anyway), it might be better to have a brief discussion with other editors on the article talk page over this issue (it seems to be little more than a grammar/copyediting disagreement, not a major content dispute). Whatever version is settled on at the talk page can be kept, and then the IP can be blocked if he changes that without engaging in the discussion. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 19:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

71.243.119.32 reported by Justin A Kuntz (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Another editor who seems to feel that one of the purposes of Wikipedia is to right great wrongs. See his first comment in the talk page. I'm not going to risk a block for reverting wholesale POV changes so I am alerting an admin to review the changes. I emphasise that I don't intend to make further reverts. I would however bring your attention to the fact that the editor chose to revert after a further warning about 3RR and seems to think that 3RR grants carte blanche to make a specific number of reverts, see. Note that this editor has been slow reverting for several days. Justin talk 22:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This report is without merit. The user who reported me, Justin_A_Kuntz repeatedly reverted my edits without discussion. Please view the history and the talk section. He has still not provided ANY constructive feedback. I have repeatedly asked, him to tell me exactly what his problem with my edits are. He has refused other than to make vague comments about NPOV and righting great wrongs. I don't understand how either of these policies apply to my specific edits. I have asked. I have received no useful answers.

As stated in the discussion, I reverted a third time SPECIFICALLY to allow him to make a new revert that only removes the parts that he thinks there are issues with. Instead of embracing my attempt to lower the temperature, he falsely accused me falsely of breaching 3RR.

If there are issues with my edits, I want to know specifically what they are and discuss how the article can be improved. I think that providing specific feedback about WHY you do a revert is absolutely essential to making that revert useful. I don't understand why I am having so much trouble getting this feedback, or how the issue could have escalated here.71.243.119.32 (talk) 22:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You need 4R to break 3RR, and if you needed 3 then J has brkoen it too. Furthermore, while the anon has made considerable attempts to use the talk page, I'm not seeing much from J there other than incorrect policy-quoting (WP:NPOV requires that we represent all views equally is false) William M. Connolley (talk) 07:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

User:20enlightened1 reported by User:Hj108 (Result: 15h both)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (link)


 * 1st revert: 10:03, 31 August 2009 (edit summary: "Unsourced comments; Citation tag added")
 * 2nd revert: 10:21, 31 August 2009 (edit summary: "")
 * 3rd revert: 11:22, 31 August 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 311057021 by Hj108 (talk)My Note's been on the discs page;can't help if you choose to ignore it. so 3RR applies to You.")
 * 4th revert: 11:43, 31 August 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 311062065 by Hj108 (talk)I know that but you've been ignoring my note on the discussion page, hence the reverts.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (link) - I know I'm supposed to warn him with a template but the user's edit summaries show he knows about 3RR.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [# 22:17, 30 August 2009 (edit summary: "/* Al-Khalid origin */") ]

Comments:

Never done this before so I don't really know what I'm doing. The user "20enlight.." posted on the talk page under an earlier discussion. At first I did not notice this and added a post in a new section at the bottom of the talk page (isn't this the standard procedure?). After adding my post, I saw his and replied to it, again at the bottom of the page. I also posted sources to back my arguments. The above user still claims I have not replied.

IMO this is just another case of Indo-Pak rivalry; this guy does not care about the article being factual, only which flags are shown at the top, whereas I'm adding sources and have made contributions to expand it with new info. --Hj108 (talk) 12:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You both violated 3RR. In the future, when the other party continues to revert without discussion, then: come here earlier; move up the chain of the dispute resolution process; or consider requesting page protection. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 13:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

User:ROxBo reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: Both warned)
. : Time reported: 13:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 10:28, 31 August 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 10:52, 31 August 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 11:02, 31 August 2009  (edit summary: "add the (2009 released) 06/2008 ABS estimate of population to main text, still useful to have census data in article, remove dead line about capital of NQld")
 * 4) 11:03, 31 August 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 11:57, 31 August 2009  (edit summary: "totally agree - my error on LGA, ABS subsets confusing. h'ver restored statistical district rather than urban area most commonly used for pop's see List of cities in Australia by population")
 * 6) 12:00, 31 August 2009  (edit summary: "restored to (2008 updated) statistical division")
 * 7) 12:03, 31 August 2009  (edit summary: "okay, now done")
 * 8) 12:30, 31 August 2009  (edit summary: "hey, let's not inflame things - my edits are not misleading ok? please don't have an edit war, use discussion page if you need, the statistical district data has been on this page for months")
 * 9) 13:22, 31 August 2009  (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Bidgee (talk) to last version by ROxBo")


 * Diff of warning: here

Comments:


 * Both warned for edit warring and how to handle disputes properly. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 14:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Muntuwandi reported by User:Wikiscribe (Result: no vio)
Genetic history of Europe

1st revert

2nd Revert

3rd revert

This user appears to be trying to pov push his personal editorial piece into the article and edit warring with several editors in the process, also when investigating this case note the users block log he has a checkered past on here to say the least of disruptive behavior and according to his block log and talk page an admin was extremely kind and unblocked him from his sock puppetry case if he promised to be good and he would abide by a 1 revert rule only i decided to make this report at three because of users history and the imposed 1 rr on him--Wikiscribe (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

M (signing, confusingly, as W) is indeed limited to 1RR (by agreement with me), but hasn't broken that here. However, it does look like this festering dispute is close to breaking out again into open warfare. I think you are doomed to RFC and worse unless you can bring yourselves to discuss and find some common ground William M. Connolley (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Can another admin investigate this one is clearly biased for some reason,he actually has been ignoring past complaints of this user violations of the rule and edit warring for sometime now by numerous other editors,just as he is ignoring the fact the user has obviously reverted the same content more than once not to mention the content  he is edit warring over is clearly a editorial to boot--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

one more thing i am bystander not currently involved in the edit war i noticed it on my watch list..thanks for the solid investigation,now agian can i have another Admin who may be more impartial look into this ..please--Wikiscribe (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Darkoneko reported by User:Neustradamus (Result: no vio)
Revert of my change with no reason — Neustradamus ( ✉  ) 15:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jingle_%28protocol%29&diff=311047261&oldid=310746331
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jingle_%28protocol%29&diff=311059254&oldid=311054398
 * too on other wikipedia ... — Neustradamus ( ✉  ) 15:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You two appear to be having a page move mini-war, perhaps imported from some other wiki. Please don't. Moving a page without consensus is bad; please use the talk page to discuss first. And don't call the other person "bad" per WP:NPA William M. Connolley (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But if I change, I vio ... the problem is that I have always talk with this person, and this person revert all modifications, can you help me ? — Neustradamus ( ✉  ) 20:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

User:IronAngelAlice reported by User:Soxwon (Result: no reason to block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User continues to turn Feminazi into coatrackish attack on Limbaugh by overquoting MMFA and Slate for really non-notable criticsm. User also continually creates false controversy by misappropriating sources. Despite a neutral editor reverting and a warning, user continued to revert back to her preferred version (WP:OWN issue). Reverts grouped as user made changes over several edits, usually 4 or 5. Soxwon (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please note that I have been very civil with Soxwon, attempting to start a dialogue with him on the talk page on numerous occasions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Soxwon#Edit_War_on_Feminazi and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Feminazi#Removal_of_citations


 * It is also the case that Soxwon recruited another user to continue the edit war: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Geronimo20#Feminazi


 * Last, he did not warn me before posting to this board. I would be happy to revert to whatever version of Feminazi is appropriate to avoid a 3RR on my part.  Since there were lots of edits, I don't know where to revert to. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * result: I see no reason to block. Both of you guys are discussing things at the talk page now and there have been no edits to the article since that discussion got under way; I trust that neither of you is stupid enough to revert again while the discussion is ongoing, either. If you guys can't reach an agreement, there is always WP:3O, WP:LGBT, and other avenues of Dispute resolution (for example, one good editor to contact about LGBT issues is User:Moni3). As an aside... Soxwon, you should also be happy with this result, because if I blocked IronAngelAlice for edit warring I would have to block you as well. Both of you have many reverts over the past 2 days. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 23:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Tiamut reported by User:Jaakobou (Result: warned)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1st revert: 08:56, 31 August 2009 - removing, Many residents fled the camp. , inserted in 8:50 by Nudve.
 * 2nd revert: 12:12, 31 August 2009 - re-adding 4,000 people had remained in the camp, removed in 11:44 by Nudve. (challenged - see below)
 * 3rd revert: 14:00, 31 August 2009 - removing, bulldozers inside the camp to widen pathways and knock out buildings suspected of holding militants and explosives., inserted in 13:54 by Jaakobou.
 * 4th revert: 14:29, 31 August 2009 - "revert vandalism" Note: Multiple changes by Tiamut were inappropriate e.g. use of a fringe source for opinions on the Battle.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: - prior to last revert. She's also been blocked for edit-warring before.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Battle_of_Jenin

Comments:

One admin (Ynhockey) and two editors (Nudve, Jaakobou) have asked Tiamut to work with others and use the talkpage for consensus building:
 * - I don't think I'm following you either. Jim likes your edit so it's correct to make no matter what Jaakobou says? What kind of dispute resolution is that? Jaakobou made a fairly strong argument about the dispute surrounding the UN fact-finding mission. Do you have a response to the argument, or will you just continue with the "I am right, you are wrong" line? —Ynhockey (Talk) 20:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC) static link
 * - I agree with Jaakobou. The paragraph is about the massacre allegations, and it's undue to add the war crime accusation through the back door. Some compromise can be considered. I would also prefer that this be done on this talk page rather than an edit war. -- Nudve (talk) 05:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC) static link
 * The second edit claimed to be a revert does not seem to satisfy the definition of a revert for the 3RR rule. It did reinsert some information which had been deleted, but the text is completely reworded with extra information and a new good quality source is given.  In my opinion it is not a revert but a perfectly reasonable edit. Zerotalk 00:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * *cough* ... look down a bit. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 00:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Warned/Stale I would not take the 12:12 edit as a revert; Nudve removed the sentence as unsourced; Tiamut restored it with a source. Also, this report is slightly stale now.  The last revert shown here took place ten hours ago.  I will warn Tiamut though. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 00:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Xenos2008 reported by User:Alexikoua (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

Page:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

Apart from violating 3rr rule in 2 articles & insisting on standard pov and fully unsourced expressions (also claims that he can't add sources in wiki due to 'technical' issues []) and vandalisms [[ ]], User Xenos2008 has a different understanding of wiki rules breaking wp:civility, WP:NPA ([], [], [], []) in every single discussion. He blames every side 'of acting under a fictious propaganda shedule', and is a relatively new national-advocacy SPA with an aggressive battleground mentality as evidenced.

The user has also a recort in wp:npa issues [] (His answer about the report [])

Comments:


 * 24h, primarily for incivility. Didn't check on 3RR William M. Connolley (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It just goes on... ... Check the old report,too, please.--Michael X the White (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

User:64.169.53.42 reported by User:Bdb484 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: here


 * Revert 1:
 * Revert 2:
 * Revert 3:
 * Revert 4:
 * Revert 5:
 * Revert 6:
 * Revert 7:
 * Revert 8:
 * Revert 9:
 * Revert 10:
 * Revert 11:
 * Revert 12:
 * Revert 13:
 * Revert 14:
 * Revert 15:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Strong pattern of edit warring and vandalism, as evidenced by the 40 or so template warnings on the talk page, as well as three previous blocks.

— Bdb484 (talk) 00:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - 6 months for long-term vandalism. (Last block was for 3 months). Fascination with 'poop', constant warring at Najeh Davenport. EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Petershipton reported by User:Ohconfucius (Result: warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [Historical, for reference only]


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Each time, Petershipton has been reverted by a different editor. It is clear from the diversity of editors reverting and the edit summaries that there is no consensus. The editor has been invited to take his concerns to the talk page, but has so far declined

1 2 attempts again on 8 August

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Since mid July, Petershipton has attempted to insert the disputed text into the article. Of course, the editor may be inexperienced, but the insertions are made most of the time with misleading edit summaries, and the edits marked as minor. He made 2 attempts in early August, and reverted 4/5 times yesterday. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Warned, per AniMate William M. Connolley (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

User:99.142.8.116 reported by Gamaliel (talk) (Result: 24h)
. : Time reported: 18:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 16:09, 31 August 2009 (edit summary: "/* Early life and career */ Added Citation Needed Tag. Which Award? What Story? Employer/Affiliation? When?")


 * 1) 22:52, 31 August 2009  (edit summary: "/* Early life and career */ cite tag as per talk - need to support this with name of award, when award given, affiliation, title, etc...basic ref material")
 * 2) 23:25, 31 August 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 311172625 by Gamaliel (talk) I disagree - no proper ref exists yet and a cite is required. Need Date, Place, Title,")
 * 3) 00:25,  1 September 2009  (edit summary: "If we can't cite the Date, Title, Affiliation - not even the award itself is named or linked - we do not have a citation. Tag is appropriate, Vague, unsupported claims need ref - no proper ref exists")
 * 4) 17:37,  1 September 2009  (edit summary: "adding proper tag according to WP:CITE  (If we can't reference the Date, Title, Affiliation - not even the Award itself is Named or Linked - we do not have a citation. Tag is appropriate)")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:99.142.8.116&oldid=311175694

Comments:

This user, under a number of IP addresses, has been a contentious and uncivil editor on this page. When his/her attempts to enter POV edits and openly insult editors on the talk page were thwarted, s/he has moved on to accusing others of incivility and challenging the most basic and innocent of biographical facts. Here s/he is edit warring over a citation tag when the information - an uncontroversial, minor detail - is clearly sourced. S/he will not even accept the "better cite" tag but insists upon the "citation needed" tag even though there is a clear reference, albeit one that s/he chooses not to accept. Gamaliel (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you'll notice from the edit's - The first one listed adds the tag - and my supposed 4th edit merely reinstates a tag lost in the shuffle. Gamaliel himself has added a version of the same tag requesting a citation to the same place and fact in the article. There was no revert, simply a replacement of a tag that we both agree to and have added in one way or another. 99.144.251.189 (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I added the "better cite" tag, you reverted it to "citation needed". That's hardly you agreeing with anything. Gamaliel (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither of our tags were there for the fourth edit you ref'd above, or the 1st. The question seems to revolve around whether we use the tag as dictated by policy in WP:CITE or whether we use a template that Gamaliel introduced.99.144.251.189 (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:CITE says you should use that tag when a fact "lacks citation". The fact at issue has a citation.  I provided the appropriate tag that was created for exactly this kind of situation, but you continue to edit war over your preferred tag. Gamaliel (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Quote, "If a claim is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article or to Wikipedia, use the tag, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time."   If we can't reference the Date, Title, Affiliation - not even the Award itself is Named or Linked - then we do not have a citation and the Tag is clearly appropriate.99.144.251.189 (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not the forum to be debating preference of tags. The diffs above clearly indicate the 99.x.x.x editor reverted the status of the article to a state containing his "citation needed" tag at least 4 times in a 24-hour period. Edit warring behavior has been established regardless of tag preference or appropriatness. Having that tag removed or changed by multiple editors was a clear indication that more discussion, not more re-insertion, was needed. This dynamic-IP editor does have a history of incivility and disruptive editing, having been blocked on several prior accounts:



and even prompting temporary article protection. In light of frequently changing IPs, maybe semi-protection is in order. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h. Semi if any further edits William M. Connolley (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

User:81.111.114.131/ User:81.110.104.91 reported by User:WebHamster (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert: as 81.110.104.91
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

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

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

Comments:

This IP editor is leapfrogging through two IP addresses 81.110.104.91 and 81.111.114.131 (both addresses geolocate to the same NTL southern England location) both repeatedly deleting/reverting the same text. This editor attempted to AfD the article and failed. During the AfD he/she continually edited the same article disruptively against the advice of several editors. It seems they still want to get their won way with the article, ie wreck it. --<font color="#000000">Web <font color="#ff0000">H <font color="#000000">amster  18:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Both IPs blocked for 31h and article semi-protected for a month. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 18:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Jemesouviens32 reported by Andi 3ö (talk) (Result: no vio)
. : Time reported: 19:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit war on

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


 * 1) 15:59,  1 September 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 311245193 by Andi 3Ã¶ (talk) The decision was keep from an administrator [NuclearWarfare] hence undo...")
 * 2) 18:03,  1 September 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 311308472 by Andi 3Ã¶ (talk) Vandalism")


 * Diff of warning: here

After two lengthy discussions on here and continued here there is an apparent consensus to turn the page into a redirect/disambiguation but the user keeps on reverting my edits and instead of trying to counter my arguments on talk, calls my edits "Vandalism". Andi 3ö (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 2 reverts isn't enough. Warned re incivil edit summaries. I'm afraid I don't understand NW's AFD closure; these things have their own weird rules. You should probably ask NW to clarify, if that would help the edit war William M. Connolley (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Oops, I see you have asked for clarification. No, it makes no sense to me either William M. Connolley (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

User:96.230.141.254 reported by User:Mlaffs (Result: 12h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: I've removed the uncited material twice, and another user has removed it once. In my last removal, I left a plain statement in the article regarding the format/call sign swap that can be cited. It would be inappropriate for me to act in an administrative capacity with regard to this situation at this point.

Mlaffs (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 12h for incivility; warned re edit warring William M. Connolley (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Introman reported by The Four Deuces (talk) (Result: PP 1 week)
. : Time reported: 03:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

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


 * 1) 15:44,  1 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Putting back in well sourced claim that Adam Smith and John Locke were classical liberals.")
 * 2) 20:02,  1 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "False edit summary that this is refuted by the sources. Look at the sources! It's plain English.")
 * 3) 00:39,  2 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "I dont see evidence that this person is a "follower" of classical liberalism")
 * 4) 01:10,  2 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Revert. Please work toward making sure things are sourced for what is claimed. Don't be disruptive.")
 * 5) 02:44,  2 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "The quote given to source this doesn't even mention classical liberalism. Note to Four Deuces: do not revert back in claims that are not represented by the purported source.")


 * Diff of warning: here


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

Please note that 2 and 3 are consecutive edits, so there are only 4 reverts.

—The Four Deuces (talk) 03:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Number 5. is not a revert. It's deletion of ADDITIONAL information that was falsely sourced. So, there are two reverts, I believe (and not all for the same thing). Introman (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Administrators, please look at the nature of these edits. I've had a lot of conflicts with "The Four Deuces," because he is a highly disruptive editor. He apparently couldn't care less if something is sourced or not. He will delete it something if I put it there with multiple sources. Then he will turn around and delete something that is improperly sourced. This is all clear to see in the diffs above. Thanks. Introman (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * One week. Multi-party edit war. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Muntuwandi reported by User:Wikiscribe (result)
Genetic history of Europe

1st revert

2nd Revert

3rd revert

4th revert

This user appears to be trying to pov push his personal editorial piece into the article and edit warring with several editors in the process, also when investigating this case note the users block log he has a checkered past on here to say the least of disruptive behavior and according to his block log and talk page an admin was extremely kind and unblocked him from his sock puppetry case if he promised to be good and he would abide by a 1 revert rule only. Opening up a new case because because said editor has reverted for the 4 th time--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Just noticed this, therefore I should comment though it is a month old. A checkered past, . This is also related . Wapondaponda (talk) 05:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This user User:Muntuwandi was warned this morning User_talk:Muntuwandi by User:William_M._Connolley, the admin that put him on the one revert condition and Muntuwandi has continued his reverting on the article and imo is gaming the situation by reverting after 24 hours and a couple of mins. Off2riorob (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No. You've got your timestamps confused. I warned M/W at 19:41, 1 September 2009; rv4 is at 2009-09-01T13:31:45. Indeed, as of writing, M/W has no contribs post my warning. And: pile-on "imo"'s get no weight here William M. Connolley (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, sorry. The old 24 hour clock got the better of me, I see now your warning was after his last revert. I also see you have given him another nudge. I hardly think the one comment from me can be described as a pile on, I saw the complaint, had a look and passed a comment, ok it was a bit wrong about your warning but it was in good faith, the 24 hours and 2 mins revert is clear gaming of the one revert condition. Off2riorob (talk) 09:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Easy Goer (Result: Protected)
I have no idea what's going on at, but there are several editors reverting each other all over the place. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * By another admin. Reports such as these should typically go to WP:RFPP. Cheers, <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 07:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask for protection. I asked for review of the edit warriors' edit histories.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

User:OMCV & User:Likebox reported by User:OMCV (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * And many more.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Nearly the entirety of Talk:Quantum mysticism. I have also tried WP:3O and Wikiquette alerts. (Quantum mysticism was protected by User:Vsmith while filing this report.)

Comments:


 * by another admin. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 07:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Pungimaster reported by User:SpaceFlight89 (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 16+ reverts by Pungimaster on the article today.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ; user has been blocked twice for edit warring over the same article.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Maulana Masood Azhar User is uncooperative and accusing everyone who's on the other side in the content dispute of sockpuppetry and racism. —SpaceFlight89 06:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments:


 * For continued edit warring, and general disruptive editing and WP:POINT issue on talk pages and in his edit summaries. Further, the editor has made personal attacks against multiple editors. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 07:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Steve Grayce reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: 15h)
3RR violation on


 * 1st edit: 14:50 August 28, adds to the title of an article, "They Want To Take Your Drugs Away!"


 * 1st revert: 14:31 Sept 1, again adds, "They Want to Take Your Drugs Away!"
 * 2nd revert: 06:39 Sept 2, removes Antony Lerman from lead
 * 3rd revert: 06:46 Sept 2, removes Antony Lerman from lead
 * 4th revert: 06:56 Sept 2, removes Antony Lerman from lead

Comments
This is a new account, a LaRouche supporter, almost certainly an old editor. Is removing material he sees as critical of LaRouche and reverting a lot. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 07:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's a new user, wouldn't a have been appropriate? <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 07:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 07:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Many thanks. Regarding the template, it's a new account, but almost definitely a returning user. I'll consider asking for a CU. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 07:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Sam9925 reported by User:VsevolodKrolikov (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user keeps removing reference to Israel as an emerging market despite the sourcing being unambiguous on this matter. A similar edit war by another user (now blocked) had happened just before. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 07:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Das Ansehnlisch reported by User:Merbabu (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Only effort by this user to discuss was the comments "screw you" on my talk page.:


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 14:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin reported by User:Leatherstocking (Result: No vio)
Page:

User being reported:


 * First edit: 11:25 August 28 deletes Russian press coverage
 * First revert: 4:26 September 2 reverts quote request tag
 * Second revert: 4:31 September 2 again deletes Russian press coverage
 * Third revert: 5:48 September 2 reverts NPOV and Split tags
 * Fourth revert: 6:41 September 2 reverts removal of Antony Lerman from lede
 * Fifth revert: 6:52 September 2 reverts removal of Antony Lerman from lede

Comments:

This user has performed 62 mostly tendentious edits to this article since August 28. Is removing material she sees as favorable to LaRouche and reverting a lot. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * . Consecutive edits count as one for the purposes of the three-revert-rule. CIreland (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The cited edits are not consecutive. I am somewhat shocked at the way this has been handled. I filed this complaint because I thought it was somewhat brazen of this user to complain about User:Steve Grayce (see above -- he was blocked for 15 hours) when her own behavior was similar, but more extreme than his. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Three of them were part of the same batch of edits and count as 1 edit. One was five days prior to all the others. Therefore there are at most 3 reverts in 24 hours represented. Now subtract the ones which are reverts of a banned user. No admin is even going to contemplate a block. CIreland (talk) 02:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

User:84.240.27.89 reported by User:Mikej007 (Result: 24h)

 * 1) Page:


 * 1) Page:


 * 1) Page:


 * 1) Page:


 * 1) Page:

User being reported:


 * 1) Previous version reverted to:
 * 2) Previous version reverted to:
 * 3) Previous version reverted to:
 * 4) Previous version reverted to:
 * 5) Previous version reverted to:

Vilnius

 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

Biržai

 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

Tiškevičiai Palace, Palanga

 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

Paneriai

 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:

Simonas Daukantas

 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The case is under mediation [ Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-08-19/Paneriai]

This anon user reverts systematically all Polish-related Lithuanian articles, always without explanation. The case of Polish-Lithuanian naming is under mediation and all his reverts are ageains WP:policy and WP:POV. It is also widely discussed on the talk pages, what this user haven't done. As you see, this user usually tries not to revert more than twice, in the tought of not fallint under 3rr rule, but the range of his reverts tells the stiry. pleaseblock this IP to br anon.

--Mikej007 (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a very disruptive Anon user who's sole purpose is to remove Polish names from all Polish - Lithuanian related articles. Personally I think it is a sock puppet of an established editor known for similar behavior.--Jacurek (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked him to stop[] here, however he continues anyway, now changing nationalities[] all together.--Jacurek (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The anon got blocked for edit warring, though was never been warned or approached for discussion. Jacurek presented a false chronology, claiming the anon continued after his warning (Jacurek avoided leaving a timestamp as well) but in reality only asked one minute before his comment. Also, it seems the anon doesn't travel about removing Polish names but undid the changes of 203.56.87.254/124.190.113.128. Nor was the anon warned about policies or so much as approached to discuss things, bitten instead with a block request, which makes also look Jacurek's blanked edit warring extremely unproductive, simply using undo and calling it "vandalism". Similarly, the "warning" Mikej007 presented as a diff link in this report is no warning at all. Sciurinæ (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Judging by his edits this Anon is an experience editor who is reverting without explanation against opinion of majority of editors. Please get familiar with facts before accusing other editors, you personally had previous disagreements with, of misbehavior. Thank you.--Jacurek (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Jacurek is also reverting without explanations and I don't see any consensus in this medcabal case that would justify undiscussed revert warring like Jacurek's . There shouldn't be any better treatment for Jacurek's revert warring than for the IP, especially not based on Jacurek's added misrepresentation of the matter, but so far he received no consequences while the IP got blocked despite never having been warned or approached for discussion. Sciurinæ (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * These edits of mine were reverts of the vandalized pages by the above problematic Anon. I'm just wondering Sciurinæ what your agenda here is and why you are so strongly defending the Anon who clearly reverts against an opinion of majority of editors. You are also attacking my person and your traditional opponent user Piotrus (see Anon talk page[])? Can you explain that on my talk page please? I have also left you a message ealier on your talk page[] but you ignored it. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding your ad hominem attack, my "agenda" right now is to prevent success for what I consider another disgraceful misrepresentation by a user engaged in sustained edit warring who manages to get an "opponent" IP blocked, achieved by those misrepresentations although that IP never got warned or talked to on the subject. I had noticed the ANI thread two days ago and pointed out what should be the basic level of decency regarding new users, having feared already then that proper procedure of talking and if necessary warning could get circumvented in the edit war in favour of blockshopping. I especially feared that admins could have been misled if not pointed out. Now exactly the same happened again but this time the misprepresentations had not been pointed out in time and therefore they succeeded in misleading. This only goes to show the importance of having an eye on violations of policies (in particular WP:GAMING) of said users. Sciurinæ (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your concerns regarding the fair treatment of the Anon user but I still wonder why you focus more on behavior of your traditional opponents such as myself and user Piotrus instead on the behavior of the clearly disruptive Anon user. You also question William's decision to block the Anon user as well as Mike's decision to report him. Honestly, and please do not take any offense, I see your actions as and attempt to falsely accuse me of misbehavior as an revenge for ours past disagreements on Polish/Jewish - German history. I also think that our further discussion should be taken off this board. Looking forward your response on my talk page. Regards.--Jacurek (talk) 02:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)