Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive128

User:Kuebie reported by User:Sennen goroshi (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

The editor has previously been blocked for edit warring, and has recently had an indef block removed - so they are well aware of wikipedia rules/blocking procedures/3RR

I have tried to resolve this issue on the user in question's talk page - and requested they get involved in the talk page, however there was no response on their talk page, my talk page or the article talk page - the only response was continued reverts.

Comments:

I have linked to the previous version of the article, however the user's reverts are different reverts - that are removing different information. As far as I am aware different reverts are still considered to be edit warring when made in the same 24hour period on the same article. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 12:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

If you take a look at the article's history, you'll find his edits revolve around maligning independence activist Kim Gu for whatever reasons he can come up with that day. Persistent behavior dispite obvious protest from other users leads me to believe he has some sort of chip on his shoulder. Now I've dismissed his warning: "Why not go to the talk page and gain some consensus, if you feel strongly about this?". How convient of him to tell me to reach a consensus when he's the one who keeps adding new (fringe) materials and edits such as this. As for the report itself, I'm kind of confused. Is he planning me take me down with himself? Because he clearly went over his 3rd (4th... 5th...) revert. Akkies (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I added new material, I did not revert. If you consider my edits to be adding fringe material then take it up on the talk page, instead of reverting me. I suggested before I made this report that you discuss it on the article talk page, but you did not respond apart from continuing to revert. I would have preferred to discuss this on a talk page, but you seem to have been hell bent on reverting anything and everything that I tried to contribute towards the article in question. Four reverts in less than 24hours, says it all. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, it's just another way to continue your ongoing campaign. Refer to your first edit, which is indentical to what you're putting in right now. You seem very commited to this, even using blog sources. Or if that fails, deliberately misinterpreting articles to push such an extremist (unique) viewpoint. The edits are directionless, seemingly slanderous. Don't think you've created some sort of loophole. Akkies (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Aaaand Sennen has just reverted Aocduio's edit to his version on Kim Gu. Akkies (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that I reverted someone on that article, after not touching it for nearly 30 hours is somehow comparable to your 4 reverts in 24 hours? Don't try to change this ANI report into something that it is not - if you wish to discuss the article - go to the article talk page, if you wish to complain about my actions, make a report against me or contact me directly - if you wish to explain why you think you should be allowed to revert four times within a 24hr period - do it here. I am done wasting my time here. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not for me to decide. And my replies are appropriate. All very relevent, needed to defend my actions from deceptive report like this. In fact, your report was unknown to me until EdJohnston gave me the notice. Pretty sly Sennen. Akkies (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Article protected two weeks. This is a long-running dispute about what evaluation (favorable or unfavorable) should be given to Kim Gu, who appears to be a sort of a controversial founding father, and served as President of Korea in 1927. Direct quotes from reliable sources ought to do the job, but people seem to be having some trouble finding sources in English. Protection would require editors to work things out on the talk page. If agreement is reached, ask for unprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Mercenary Roadie reported by User:Minimac (Result: warned)
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: [diff]

Comments:

This user is doing a heck of a lot of unexplained reverting. Minima c  ( talk ) 20:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not acceptable to use the undo function on edits without any summary unless it is blatant vandalism. Repeatedly reverting every edit over several days without any explanation is particularly egregious. Any further attempts will result in a block. Tim Song (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Bento00 (Result: No action, incomplete report)
This user constantly removes images illustrating different epochs from Marx's Historical Stages--79.111.90.47 (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 1st revert
 * 2nd revert
 * 3rd revert
 * 4th revert
 * 5th revert
 * 6th revert
 * 7th revert  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.111.90.47 (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Edit-warring continued, and it seems administrator User:Materialscientist deleted the history to cover-up his friend User:Bento00. I hope sysops can see the entire edit history.--79.111.75.165 (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Everyone can see the history. –Turian  ( talk )  01:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. He simply deleted the article and moved another article in its place after this edit war report so to erase the history . Also see how User:Bento00 thanked him for the trick .--79.111.75.165 (talk) 01:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - No action, incomplete report. I think that the submitter of this report,, is evading the 31-hour block on . After your block expires, perhaps you can come back and file a report here in the proper style. It is hard for us to piece together what is troubling you. So far I do not see that you made any effort to communicate with User:Materialscientist or User:Bento00. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Blaxthos User:Hipocrite User:Turian User:Dlabtot reported by User:JakeInJoisey (Result: No violation and reporter warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st Edit of My Talk Contribution (User:Blaxthos):
 * 2nd edit of My Talk Contribution (User:Blaxthos):
 * 3rd Edit of My Talk Contribution (User:Hipocrite):
 * 4th Edit of My Talk Contribution (User:Turian):
 * 5th Edit of My Talk Contribution (User:Dlabtot):

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] Note: Upon discovery that my talk content had been edited a second time, I tried to protect my OWN talk content by reverting, a second time, the edit, then proceeded to try to make the recommended Wikipedia notations on the "talk" page. The rapidity of subsequent reverts to incorporate changes to my talk content were simply too rapid to allow me to observe 3RR cautions to the involved editors.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 1. 2. 3. 

Comments:

The obvious question that will come to bear is why I was unwilling to allow my content to be edited in the first place. The reasons are twofold...and I'm not sure which is more important. First, the idea that any editor can arbitrarily edit the content another editor's contribution to a "talk" environment discussion strikes me as bordering on Wikipedia obscenity. Secondly and, perhaps more importantly, my content was assembled to present the views of all contributor's to the RS/N AT THE TIME THE ARCHIVAL SUMMARY WAS APPLIED. User:Blaxthos had contributed NOTHING to either RS/N at that point and could not have impacted the construction of the "archive summary" in ANY manner.

In contention within the talk environment is the validity of the "archival summary" that was applied when ARCHIVED, not when User:Blaxthos arrived into the talk "discussion". As I type, a fourth "editor" is now editing my originally submitted content.

I respectfully request that the original content I submitted to the "talk" page be restored and, somehow, protected from what I feel is overt vandalism of my content. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

On edit: As User:Dlabtot has now seen fit to edit my original content as well, I have appended his/her username to the petition and will notify. It has also been brought to my attention that copyright considerations may have some bearing on this issue. I will defer further comment on the particulars until such time as all editor's have been afforded adequate time for consideration and input. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion a reverse block should be in order, I mean, Jake has made 5 recent reverts on this talk page which I'm not sure if any of them meet the exceptions to 3RR as he sometimes calls it "vandalism":, , , , with the 5th one leading to a threat. Minima c  ( talk ) 04:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an absolute joke of a report. 3 editors making 4 edits cannot violate 3RR; however, one can, and that is precisely what Jake has done. I call for a block on him, to show him that he needs to stop making something out of nothing.
 * If you are going to include a table of editor opinions on sources, you have no right to deny the addition of other editor opinions on the grounds that you may not like it. You were the one who blew this up into something it should never have become. WP:GETOVERIT. –Turian  ( talk )  11:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

JakeinJoisey has been single-handedly fillibustering RSN and it's accompanied talk page for a month at this point. He has engaged in edit-warring to prevent others from archiving closed discussions, from adding their opinions to charts of opinions and has been just generally unwilling to lose. Whoever closes this report should certainly consider what steps they could best take to prevent JiJ from further disrupting wikipedia - I suggest a temporary ban from RSN and it's talk page, and a longer ban on linking to WorldNetDaily anywhere on wikipedia. Just a thought! Hipocrite (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I support the above recommendations. Jake, as every edit page has stated: If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not  submit it here. You have no copyright. We did not alter the meaning of your content, especially since what was edited was not prose. Jake needs to be blocked to stop his disruptive behavior. –Turian   ( talk )  13:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No violation and I have warned the reporting editor to cease being disruptive. Black Kite 13:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

User:FleetCommand reported by User:J. M. (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert: (the first in a series of empty edits to make it technically more difficult to undo the previous revert correctly)
 * 4th revert: (the second in a series of three empty "reverts")
 * 5th revert: (the final empty "revert" to make it more difficult to notice or undo)
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert: (the most serious violation so far&mdash;it is a deceptive revert, disguised with an "innocent" description and bundled with an unrelated edit to masquerade it as a regular edit and make it easy to overlook)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, (pre, in the edit summaries),  (post, on the user's talk page)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

FleetCommand has been violating the Wikipedia etiquette in several different ways:


 * 1) Deceptive tactics, masquerading reverts as regular edits
 * 2) Unwillingness to discuss the issue: despite being asked three times to address the points explained on the talk page, he ignores them, never replies on the talk page
 * 3) Giving invalid explanation in his reverts: FleetCommand has been repeatedly explained (both in the edit summaries and on the talk page) that the Weasel words guideline is a guideline, not a policy, and most importantly, by definition, refers to attribution (a direct quote from the definition: "On Wikipedia, the term refers to evasive, ambiguous or misleading attribution."), that is, the verifiability and NPOV policies. Therefore, by definition, his argument that the expression "The player can play files in a variety of formats" violates the weasel words guideline is invalid, as it does not concern attribution at all (we can certainly argue about the wording, content, style, we can ask whether it is vague etc., and I am open to discussion, but it would be a completely different discussion&mdash;the original version simply, by definition, does not violate the Wikipedia weasel words guideline, and therefore all his reverts are invalid, as they give a bogus reason in the explanation, and knowingly, because FleetCommand has been repeatedly reminded of it, that's the problem). This is explained in more detail on the talk page. FleetCommand has never been able to disprove this obvious and easily provable fact. Instead of replying, he just continues to revert the edits with the same copy&paste "reason", and when he's warned about edit warring, he masks the revert as an unrelated edit.

Please note that my original version (link number 1) was already a compromise from me&mdash;because we could not agree on the particular wording (listing supported formats), I simply changed it to a general expression "a variety of formats", which is an uncontroversial fact that nobody can disagree with. I considered it a reasonable compromise for both sides (he did not like my original version, and I did not like his original version, so I simply offered a neutral version). FleetCommand, as usual, simply reverted my neutral version to his original version, and as always without any discussion. This again shows that the user is unwilling to cooperate in any way.

This behaviour is unacceptable and goes against several Wikipedia guidelines such as Etiquette ("Do not ignore questions - If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think that it is appropriate" etc.), Disruptive editing (A disruptive editor: "repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits; repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits."), Edit warring (reverting instead discussing, gaming the system via intentional deceit, spreading the reverts just over 24 hours to escape the 3RR, and by knowingly misinterpreting the guidelines). Good faith cannot be assumed anymore. And because FleetCommand has already said, when he unsuccessfully complained to an administrator (the admin said FleetCommand was wrong), that he wanted to "rip me apart", I have to suppose FleetCommand's real motivation is not improving the article. Given all his malicious and deceptive actions, I suppose he is indeed driven by his personal desire to... well, rip me apart.&mdash;J. M. (talk) 08:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24h. Quite apart from the mass reverting (doesn't quite hit 4 in 24 hours, but there are far more over a 48h period), the empty edits and the deceptive edit summaries make it clear that the editor isn't contributing in a collegial manner. Black Kite 11:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Wangarattan reported by User:Favonian (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

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

and so on.
 * 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: ,

Comments:


 * Blocked for 24 hours. Black Kite 16:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Imagine75 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 23:06, 4 April as a previous anon 3RR violator, but it's stale


 * 1st revert: 08:28, 5 April
 * 2nd revert: 10:56, 5 April
 * 3rd revert: 15:48, 5 April
 * 4th revert: 23:55, 5 April

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 14:14, 5 April
 * Note the response at 15:47

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There already appeared to be consensus that the addition had no reliable sources, and limited relevance to the section. My comment of 17:35 may not have been helpful, but it confirmed the previous note that GB fan previous refuted 174.58.137.241 and Imagine75's "arguments" that there was something to be added. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

Note that there were at least 2, and possibly as many as 4, reverts by 174.58.137.241 before the Imagine75 account was created. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24h. A fifth revert occurred after this report was filed. Black Kite 00:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Mcrfobrockr reported by User:Nymf (Result: 31h)
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:

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

Comments:

This has to be one of the more WP:LAME edit wars I've seen. Tim Song (talk) 04:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Mosmof reported by 68.173.122.113 (Result: Semi)


Mosmof a user who has commented on this page extensively is adding serious accusations against something which accured nearly 2 years ago, and was debated ad naseum in a debate he lost. There have been no charges nor anything of the like. Torossian's firm was recently named one of the largest in the US but this is whitewashed. Help revert to original content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing this is not a serious 3RR accusation, but I should comment. Both the aformentioned article and 5W Public Relations, a mildly controversial firm owned by the former, were heavily edited by its staffer(s) using multiple IDs (Requests for checkuser/Case/Emetman makes for a good Sunday reading), generally reworking content to be more favorable, to the point and removing information that's uncomfortable for the firm and its clients, while making un-WP:AGF accusations against anyone who disagrees using specious reasoning that ignore Wikipedia policies. My understanding is that I'm an anti-semite who works for the Lower East Side B.I.D. Judging by the tone, type of edits and language, my guess is that and  is a reemergence of the above, but I don't think they're being overly disruptive yet. Mosmof (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Mosmof is using his continued agenda to slander 5W. There is no reworking other than readding information which was there prior to vandalism. Unaware why the firm being named one of the 15 largest in US shouldnt be present nor why INC magazine wouldnt be not present. Also it should be noted this fight began regarding an issue Mosmof posted in contrast to items he posted years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You are referring to "heavy editing" nearly 2 years ago by people who are no longer employed by the company, right ? What is the justification for removing language which says they are 1 of the biggest firms in the US ? Why would that be the case ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is probably the wrong forum for continuing content-related discussion, but I should point out that the IP editor wants to insert more detailed information about the firm in the Torossian article. My point is, and has been, that the article should contain information that's about the person and some basic information about the firm, but anything about how awesome the company is should be in the company article, and there's a convenient main link will help any curious readers. -Mosmof (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I was actually on the way to the IPs page when I saw this, the IP is currently in violation of 3RR on the page. Since he brought this here, it seems like he's knowingly trying to get Mosmof blocked. Dayewalker (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It has to be added here because Mosmof ignores direct messages. If the company info suffices, then why does Joe Francis remain ? He's noteable bc of the company he owns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 20:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe both of them should be blocked. They seemed to have tried to discuss it on the talk page, while simultaneously reverting each other. –Turian  ( talk )  20:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You can see me ignoring direct messages here, here and here. Honestly, I haven't kept count of my reverts, and I acknowledge, I may have been revert-happy because of the history of editors associated with the IPs. If I need to be blocked, then I'm okay with that. --Mosmof (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Semiprotected. This article has been the subject of so much abuse in the past that we shouldn't need to think long and hard before taking admin action. Anyone connected with Mr. Torossian who wants to make the article more favorable to him would be well-advised to cooperate with our WP:COI policy. Creating a registered account would be a good first step, and impeccable behavior would do a lot to earn respect here. The apparent return to promotional editing is not charming and does not give us much reason to extend good faith. Listening for consensus on the talk page before making controversial changes could be a winning strategy.  EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Mosmof again has refused to this page to yet again make edits ? Did not this forum recommend he stay away ? Why did he revisit again ? Can he finally be banned from touching this page ? Please just look @ the facts. You cant say that the fact that Torossian's firm is one of largest isnt relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 09:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Varsovian reported by User:Howelseornotso (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert: including removal of source

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 

Comments:

Past Arbcom sanctions warning: for tendentious "original research" and aggressive edit-warring.

To my mind user is being disruptive and ignoring WP guidance and policy.--Howelseornotso (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Varsovian was edit warring with multiple editors and he continues   with new IP's. To clarify, I'm not is the same editor as the IP's.--Howelseornotso (talk) 07:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure whether Varsovian broke 3RR here, as some of the diffs above are not technically reverts. It also seems that Howelseornotso is edit warring on the same article. A newly registered account, and first thing this account does is edit warring. Even more worrisome are that mysteriously three anon SPA's appeared (, and ) at the article and another article, with the only purpose to revert Varsovian's edits. It seems that sockpuppetry is the problem here, not edit warring. Pantherskin (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Add this ip to the list. Not sure whether a range block is possible, otherwise the page should be semi-protected. Pantherskin (talk) 06:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is hard to believe that you are unrelated to these mysterious IP's. In any case you created your account on April 2, and you already know about 3RR, arbcom and correct wiki formatting. So you might or might not be the same editor as the IP's, but you certainly do not look like someone new. Pantherskin (talk) 08:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - No action. Suggest following the steps of WP:Dispute resolution, for example, a WP:Request for comment. The mysterious IP editors are all from Ontario. Getting this article right seems to require a lot of patience since there are so many conflicting explanations for the Polish non-participation in the parade. Finding more sources would be a worthwhile effort. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

User:TheDarkLordSeth reported by User:CheesyBiscuit (Result: both blocked)
Page:

User being reported: TheDarkLordSeth

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&oldid=354161975


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&oldid=354238589
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&oldid=354258963
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&oldid=354263063
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&oldid=354317849

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

Warned.

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

Comments:

Article is subject to a 1RR rule - mentioned at the top of the talk page. I've tried to engage with the user on both the talk page and their user talk (I've not been directly involved in the edit war myself ).

I recommend a topic ban for TheDarkLordSeth.

. Both clearly violated the 1RR imposed by Moreschi, and both are aware or apparently aware of that. The 1RR is prominently advertised on the talk page, which TheDarkLordSeth has edited. Tim Song (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

User: O Fenian reported by User:The C of E (Result: no violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This user has been reverting/vandalising continuity of the page and falsely accuses me of vandalism in his edit summary's. Also giving what I belive could construed as him threatening me with a block. I believe that if I try to fix it again he'll make good on his threat, revert again and try and get me blocked before I can report him hereThe C of E.          God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There are not even four reverts, and it does not apply to reverting vandalism. The C of E even acknowledges on his userpage that Northern Ireland does not have a flag, since it does not. He is a fine one to talk about edit summaries, given "rv vandalism". It is also worth looking at what was said to him here, "stop adding flags against policy and/or without achieving consensus. The alternative is that your next block is your last, as far as I'm concerned. We cannot and will not tolerate this single-minded disruption." Despite being told many times, The C of E persists in disruptively adding unofficial and sectarian flags, even though he knows Northern Ireland does not have a flag. O Fenian (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * but both need to re-read WP:VANDALISM and stop applying that tag to edits that they simply disagree with. Even disruptive or tendentious edits are not vandalism. Tim Song (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Arthur Rubin reported by User:TakuyaMurata (Result: No vio)
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:

Comments:


 * Please make him stop. -- Taku (talk) 00:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No violation, in fact the reporter has reverted four times to the reportee's three, though it's over a 36 hour period. Content dispute; dispute resolution is this way. Thankyou. Black Kite 00:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Zero0000 reported by User:Emmanuelm (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Under "Claims that the UN is antisemitic", 23:54, March 26, 2010 Emmanuelm added first version of paragraph about EAFORD statement. Zero000 deleted it with valid criticism (this delete is not counted in the list below). Emmanuelm rephrased the text and inserted it 22:13, March 28, 2010 as such:

"In March 2010, the statement of an NGO, re-printed as UNHRC publication A/HRC/13/NGO/23, contains accusation of organ theft. This accusation was deemed antisemitic by the Canadian Jewish Congress, 'a take-off of the historical calumny of the Jewish blood libel'"

The following log refers to insertion/deletion of the text above, which remained unchanged throughout.


 * 1st revert: text deleted March 28, 2010 Zero0000
 * 2nd revert: text reinserted 22:04, March 30, 2010 Emmanuelm
 * 3rd revert: text deleted 11:09, March 31, 2010 Zero0000
 * 4th revert: text reinserted 17:43, March 31, 2010 Shuki
 * 5th revert: text deleted 18:54, March 31, 2010 Zero0000
 * 6th revert: text reinserted 20:53, April 4, 2010 Emmanuelm
 * 7th revert: text deleted 22:09, April 4, 2010 John Z
 * 8th revert: text reinserted 18:02, April 6, 2010 Shuki
 * 9th revert: text deleted 22:23, April 6, 2010 Zero0000

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: in the talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The argument is spelled out in the talk page. Emmanuelm (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a content dispute that should be at the NPOV noticeboard, not here. Along with several other editors, I believe Emmanuelm's text is inappropriate, mostly on grounds of lack of balance and weight. The background is that the Human Rights Council receives large numbers of submissions from NGOs and publishes them in the agendas for its meetings. For the meeting ended recently, there were 139 such submissions .  All of them were published with a disclaimer stating that they are being presented unedited according to the rules of procedure.  (Here (click on the "E" of A/HRC/13/NGO/111) is an example of a submission by the pro-Israeli NGO UN Watch making charges against various Islamic countries; see the disclaimers on the front page.) One of the submissions this time was from a little-known NGO called EAFORD, which included a charge that Israel harvests body organs of Palestinians.  This is an obnoxious charge, and if someone wants to write an article on EAFORD it should be mentioned there.  However, Emmanuelm wants it to be on this page in a form that many readers will take as meaning that the UN itself made charges about body part harvesting, and shows no interest in mentioning the disclaimer published with it.  EAFORD's charge was not raised at the HRC meeting at all, according to the on-line video minutes, and as far as anyone has claimed no UN organ has ever made any sort of statement in support of EAFORD's charge.  Also, the quote from CJC that Emmanuelm wants to include is a (justified) attack on the EAFORD claim; why does it belong in an article on the UN?  The only real claim against the UN in the given source (a newspaper polemic) is an argument that they should censor submissions.  Maybe that issue is one that deserves coverage in Wikipedia, but much more material than this minor incident would be needed. Zerotalk 04:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you Zero for mentioning UN Watch. [Hillel] Neuer told The Jerusalem Post that the UNHRC in the past has asked UN Watch to change the language in documents that UN Watch plans to submit, including in this session where UNHRC asked UN Watch to edit their words with reference to Iran and Libya. If UN Watch can’t use the word “regime” when talking about Iran, then one would think that a “blood libel” would be unacceptable, Neuer said. . This is precisely the nature of the accusation against the UN in the National Post article. The antisemitism & CJC part is there merely to explain why they want the UN to censors this kind of text; antisemitism is condemned by several UNGA resolutions.
 * Now, I sense that you are changing your mind on the acceptability of this item in the article. The spirit of WP is to edit rather than delete. You might want to insert your version in the paragraph called "Claims that the UN ignores antisemitism", along with other documented incidents. You see, the article already contains "more material than this minor incident".
 * As for where this edit war should be arbitrated, I am no expert. You may move it where you wish. Emmanuelm (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Kedadi reported by User:Tadija (Result: No action )
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

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

Comments:


 * Article is part of the ARBMAC restriction. -- Tadijataking 09:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Tadija you are not allowed to edit Kosovo-related articles for 2 weeks or to make any edits related to them.   This report is a violation of your restriction. For the record this is not a revert-war case as kedadi was reverting a user who was pov-pushing and now retired shouting and insulting admins. . Also if you read the 3RR article you'll see that the point of 3RR is to prevent damage to encyclopedia not to punish users, now there is no disruption because Shanticm has retired and therefore no need for any action is needed.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 09:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is related only to article-space, not this one. And it is unrelated what i am, and what other user is. -- Tadijataking 09:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That applies to all areas as defined by the policy. You aren't allowed to edit areas related to the Balkans or make any edits related to them.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 09:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No. "he may not edit pages in article-space related to the Balkans". I agreed on that, so i know. -- Tadijataking 09:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That applies to all areas so you're violating your restriction.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 09:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Tadija is absolutely correct. He is allowed to edit talk and project pages and whatever else, as long as he does not edit the articles themselves. I've been watching him to make sure he sticks to the restriction, and he has, which is a credit to him. --Deskana (talk) 09:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay then, if it's an article-only restriction.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 09:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: There seems to be no disruption caused by Shanticm as he left wikipedia by insulting users, so we should close this case.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 09:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Kedadi hasn't made another revert since the warning he was given so I'm taking no action. If he reverts again, by all means re-report it. Pop by my talk page if you want should he revert - I'll be around most of the day.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 09:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 10:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Knorrepoes reported by User:Hobartimus (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: March 27


 * 1st revert: 10:20, 28 March 2010
 * 2nd revert: 10:23, 28 March 2010
 * 3rd revert: 10:29, 28 March 2010
 * 4th revert: 10:59, 28 March 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion was a bit scattered and mostly not on article talk   Knoerrepes did not take part in any discussion regarding the article. Description: Repeated page blanking. All the original reverts are within 40 minutes. As can be seen from the dates this case is a bit old. This is because in hopes that this person will reconsider and give up edit warring on this article, he was not reported earlier. Unfortunately this has not happened and he continues his blanking repeatedly ever since, just a few additional examples. It is notable that this blanking leaves over 40 from the over 100 sources in the article, and most of the content is deleted as well. This mass removal of sourced information is extremely disruptive in addition to the original 4 reverts within 40 minutes, so I would ask that an admin look at the situation here and stop the disruption. It is also clear that there is no consensus for this move and ignoring the BRD cycle he continues to blank the article. It is also notable that Knorrepoes's recent contribution history shows, he has not a single edit to any talk page or user talk page recently it's all reverts. Hobartimus (talk) 10:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * . It's simply too long after (around 30 hours) the last revert to act here and even then the 3RR violation goes back over a week. I've given him a warning and another undiscussed revert will end in a block.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

User:J.R. Hercules reported by User:Bonewah (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

J.R. Hercules makes some changes, some of which are OK, some of which I object to.

here is the edit in question, his previous were just rewording/reorganization

March 25th:
 * J.R. Hercules makes some changes:
 * I object to one addition in particular:
 * he re-adds with slight changes:
 * re-adds again
 * and again

April 8
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:

A friendly note on his talk page explaining some of my concerns: A reminder that he is over the 3 revert rule (march 25th) Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: april 8

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: me  user:Rjensen

Comments:

I have tried to work with this editor via edit summaries, on the talk page, and on his talk page. He has ignored the substance of my arguments and accused me of breaking some policy. Further, when I warned him about his 3 revert violation his response was to (erroneously) tag me with the same 3rr template despite the fact that I have not violated the 3rr rule. I am more than willing to work with this editor, but he has to make an effort to actually resolve our differences via talk, rather than simply charging ahead with edits he knows will be contentious. Bonewah (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - 31 hours for 3RR violation. Editor re-adds the same passage many times even after the need for getting consensus has been explained. He formally violated 3RR on 8 April. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

User: Kazimier Lachnovič reported by User:M.K (Result: 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1th revert: 2010-04-07T18:20:47
 * 2rd revert: 2010-04-07T20:16:10
 * 3nd revert: 2010-04-08T10:41:48
 * 4st revert: 2010-04-08T16:43:03

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: For the past weeks user:Kazimier Lachnovič‘s only “contributions” are exclusively  reverts on multiply pages. Already several articles are affected by his weeks’ long edit warring (Lithuanian language as well). The previous clear warning to stop edit warring failed to stop such practice. M.K. (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - 72h for edit-warring. In the month of April, the editor has made 14 reverts; he almost never participates on talk pages. This appears to be a nationalist dispute in Eastern Europe. The article is within the scope of WP:DIGWUREN, which allows admins to impose discretionary sanctions if needed. The block may be lifted if the editor will agree to follow our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Eudemis reported by User:Wildhartlivie (Result: protected)
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: User talk:Eudemis Talk:Russell Crowe

Comments: This editor continues to add the name of a non-notable individual, which was removed per WP:BLPNAME. That he waited to revert again when the 24 hours passed does not take away his insistence that the name should be inserted or violating 3RR in spirit if not fact. I've tried talking to him, was met with personal attacks and aspersions and he persists in reverting the content even while "discussing". I posted a notice to WP:BLP/N about this.

Wildhartlivie has reverted my initial edit that was properly sourced multiple times and I have, at length, sought to explain the accuracy issues involved on the talk page, a discussion which I also initiated. He has now taken to reverted my sourcing of unsourced material in the article as well. I would encourage anyone so interested to review his unique perspectives on wikipedia concepts here.  His objection to naming an individual at the center of a highly publicized controversy with the subject of the article makes absolutely no sense where the individual's name appears in countless media articles online. The fact that he's named everywhere.       doesn't make an impression on Wildhartlivie. His misinterpretation of the requirement for notability I have explained several times without success. The problem is one of ownership where editors attempt to control all content. This is much more likely to happen with celebrity articles. Again, I would encourage anyone to review the talk page. Eudemis (talk) 03:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My "misinterpretation" of notability is not a misinterpretation at all. It is factually based in WP:BLPNAME. This is a non-notable individual who is only notable for one event - getting hit in the head with a telephone by Russell Crowe. He has no notability in regard to inclusion on Wikipedia. This editor has repeatedly personally attacked me, citing "ownership", which could be turned around regarding this issue. The majority of my edits on that page are reversions of vandalism and he has bothered to include the number of edits I've made to that article in an edit summary as well . This report is not about content issues, it is about wilfully engaging in reversion in a manner that violates WP:3RR. In addition, the editor has engaged in inappropriate canvassing regarding this issue: see It is entirely improper to try and raise support by canvassing in this manner     and the ad hominem attacks he makes on me in those posts. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * . Protected by for one week. Tim Song (talk) 03:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Accipio Mitis Frux reported by User:Nableezy (Result: warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1) 18:16,  8 April 2010  (edit summary: "Edited Intro: The 2nd and 3rd sentences were repeated in the "Political Status" section.  This information should only be in one section.")
 * 2) 01:19,  9 April 2010  (edit summary: "Edited Intro: I explained the political hype which caused a stir in March 2009 with Biden, etc.")
 * 3) 13:23,  9 April 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 354938416 by Nableezy (talk)")
 * 4) 13:26,  9 April 2010  (edit summary: "Erased "however" and changed "opponents of Israel" to "Israel's critics"")
 * 5) 14:06,  9 April 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 354943882 by Sean.hoyland (talk) (See discussion--my changes are all well sourced and clearly improve the article.)")

In each of these diffs the user has removed from the lead that this settlement is located across the Green Line and is considered an Israeli settlement. The user has also responded to the edit warring notice sent to him by sending the same notice to others and re-reverting.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

 nableezy  - 14:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Hold on a minute here! You reverted a whole bunch of edits without posting to my talk page or the discussion, and then when I contacted you to discuss any issues directly, you go ahead and report me. Why didn't you just say the issue was that the Green Line statement was erased from the lead!? Seems like you want me off this page for some reason. However, I have the right to edit this page in a clean, sourced fashion, as I've done. Also, why do you have the exclusive right to give edit warring warnings? I can warn people as well, and I'm completely offended that you would cite me for that.

I've gone ahead and put the Green Line information you so desperately want in the lead. Next time, be specific about the issue or just add it in, as opposed to reverting it to less developed version of the article. And don't report people without really trying to work out specific issues. This is not cool. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not what I did. I retained many of your changes to the body, some of them were inappropriate so I reverted those. I also reverted your changes to lead where you removed the most notable aspect of this place and instead inserted some recent news. And reverting 5 times is "not cool". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I didn't revert five times!  And I deliberately inserted what I felt are the "most notable" aspects of this page in the lead.  If you felt that your green line issues were more notable, you could have added them to the introduction, and we could have avoided this whole war.  That's how you improve a page--you add and expand to sourced contributions.  If you are an experience wikipedian you should know that reverting a large number of sourced edits is going to cause a stir.  You feel that something should stay in the lead?  Fine.  This is not the way to go about it though. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There are 5 reverts listed above. And I did add the Green Line info, you repeatedly removed it. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

<- Please could an admin officially notify Accipio Mitis Frux of the discretionary sanctions covering this topic and log it. Thanks. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 15:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Now that Accipio has been notified by Malik Shabazz of the WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions, I suggest that no further admin action may be needed unless he continues to revert. EdJohnston (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Closed as such. Tim Song (talk) 03:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Toa Nidhiki05 reported by - Barek (talk • contribs) - (Result: 31h)
. : Time reported: 00:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 22:49,  9 April 2010  (edit summary: "The party's major positions, such as abortion, homosexuality, universal health care, progressive taxation, and gun control are all considered to be center-left/liberal. The party is not centrist.")
 * 2) 00:08, 10 April 2010  (edit summary: "*rageface* Their platorm is center-left/liberal, not centrist. If you keep adding this, I'll add 'Centrist' to the Republican page as well.")
 * 3) 00:14, 10 April 2010  (edit summary: "Name me 3 centrist positions; the party, as is, is liberal, not centrist.")
 * 4) 00:22, 10 April 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 355048711 by UberCryxic (talk) Invoking Wikipedia:Ignore all rules; these edits made by those two are not improving WP.")
 * 5) 00:28, 10 April 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 355050013 by The Four Deuces (talk) You get consensus.")


 * Diff of warning: 00:19, 10 April 2010

—- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not revert an edit three times; I only did it four. Also, I was preventing what is viewed where I live, the United States, as faulty information. I guess it is up to you to decide if what I did was wrong, however.  TN  05  00:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Tim Song (talk) 03:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Npendleton reported by User:Epicadam (Result: stale 31h)
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:Npendleton is also IP user 207.172.146.226, which he/she verified in conversation on the talk page. Three separate editors have reverted this user's changes, including myself. There is obviously no consensus for the changes the user is making. Thanks, epicAdam(talk) 01:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am one of the other editors who have reverted Npendleton/207.172.146.226 and confirm everything said above by epicAdam. SMP0328. (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll call this for now, since there has been no edit warring in the past 24 hours. Drop me a note on my talk page if the edit warring resumes and I'll take another look. Tim Song (talk) 03:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Npendleton's Comment:This page involves the largest known on-going repealing of rights and disenfranchisement of United States Citizens, with 600,000 citizens impacted. This paged lacked most of the NPOV facts, clear and summarized questions, timeline, such as why were DC citizens, individual, state and access to Federal Rights alienated by Congress, acting as the State Government, and why DC citizens have asked for some or all rights be restored to them.


 * I added these NPOV facts. "SMP0328." uses long, vague, incomplete and water down language, and selective over summary, and repeated deletion to protect "SMP0328."'s POV. Deleters tactics include summarily discounting all NPOV facts.  No one has identified one NPOV fact (that I provided) as factually inaccurate.  Deletion of the NPOV facts about key questions of US Constitutional Rights by "SMP0328." and others is shockingly bad.  (I am also humored that this user use a "." at the end of their user name to demonstrate how easy it is cut off discussion.) I have asked on the Discussion page which NPOV fact bothers these busy deleters of history.  Not one person that has deleted the NPOV facts I contributed has challenged a point in the material I submitted.


 * Challenging one bit of POV astroturf such as:
 * SMP0328. version "The United States Constitution grants congressional voting representation to the states, which the District is not."
 * one might consider inserting correct and but vague language of Congressional behavior and lengthy process into the article
 * "Congress, partitioned ("Cession"ed) Maryland to establish the District of Columbia. Because Congress alone interprets "Exclusive" under Article One, Section 8, clause 17, of the United States Constitution, Congress alone repealed and alienated voting rights and congressional voting representation for the Citizens of this District."


 * Any constructive input on the NPOV facts and removing POV astroturf? How do we assure NPOV is applied?Npendleton (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, a word or two in Npendleton's comment above might be NPOV. I said "might".  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Three things: (1) I didn't write that article, so don't attribute everything in it to me; (2) This issue is certainly not "stale", for Npendleton has again readded his NPOV violating material; and (3) Having reliable sourcing for what you say does not mean what you say doesn't violate NPOV. If reliable sourcing was sufficient for complying with NPOV, then NPOV would be redundant. SMP0328. (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Tim Song (talk) 01:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi all. I don't even really know where to begin with this editor. Based on this user's edit summaries, I can only imagine that this user has no intention of acting in good faith and is simply taunting the editors with whom he or she disagrees. The talk page discussion very quickly turned into this user's own philosophical diatribe. Over a period of several days, four individual editors, including myself, have reverted this user's edits; there is clearly no consensus for this user's changes. Despite Npendleton's claims to the contrary, it is not the responsibility of other users to accommodate an individual whose edits are unsourced, poorly written, tangentially related to the article topic, and violate a NPOV. -epicAdam(talk) 02:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

User:92.113.128.251 reported by User:Minimac (Result:page protected )
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: [none]

Comments:

This IP address only contributes to the article Kharkiv, and appears to be reverting without discussion on the talk page. Minima c  ( talk ) 13:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * . Protected by for one day. Dougweller (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

User:95.178.135.41 reported by User:Paul Erik (Result:31h )
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:

Comments:


 * The birthdate information the user is attempting to add is so blatantly incorrect, per multiple sources, that this might well be a case of simple vandalism. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 16:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Dougweller (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Hmbr reported by User:Factomancer (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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:

Comments:


 * I see 5 blocks of edits in the diffs provided but I don't see how these are all reverts. Factomancer, please could you provide, for each diff, the version which is being reverted to. CIreland (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It is unclear whether the diffs given are reverts and the reporting editor has ignored a request to clarify the report. CIreland (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Renejs reported by User:Eugeneacurry (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: (not really an issue, included mostly to indicate Renejs still active on page)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (warned of ANI notification) Past warnings: &

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:, , , , , &

Comments:

I initially reported Renejs to the ANI, but while admins said that something should be done, they refrained from taking action as they didn't feel familiar with the subject. Since then Renejs has continued to edit war in accordance with his WP:SPA POV. Please help. Eugene (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Article protected. Please use the Talk page to work out a compromise on the wording. If agreement is reached, ask for unprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 01:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

User:207.237.230.164 reported by User:Bali ultimate (Result: 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert: (reverts text i added explaining a citation)
 * 3rd revert: (reverts another editor)
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

The IP has just come off a 55 hour block for disruptive editing and is also being looked at for possible sockpuppetry and block evasion (two very similar IP addresses are currently on a one year block for trolling, but the SPI hasn't returned any sort of verdict yet. just suspicions).Bali ultimate (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Sockpuppet investigations/The Rusty Trombone, for reference. Jack Merridew 17:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And when that SPI resolves itself, I trust you'll strike the above comment and address the issue at hand. Know who else likes to take focus off matters and place them where they're not appropriate?  Delicious carb.  Jack, have you ever had a sock puppet yourself? 207.237.230.164 (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Had a sockpuppet? I am a sockpuppet ;)
 * <span style="white-space: nowrap; background-color: #eee; background: -moz-radial-gradient(bottom right 90deg, farthest-side, #999, #eee); border: 1px solid #999; border-radius: 0.5em; -moz-border-radius: 0.5em; -webkit-border-radius: 0.5em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -moz-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -webkit-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); display: inline-block; margin: 0.5em 0; padding: 0.5em 0.8em 0.5em; font-variant: small-caps;" title="“Bollocks to the rules!”">— Sincerely, Street-Legal <span style="text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em rgba(0,0,0,0.5);">Sockpuppet <span style="margin-right: 0.4em; padding: 3px 4px 2px; background-color: #ddd; border: 1px dotted Red; border-radius: 0.25em; -moz-border-radius: 0.25em; -webkit-border-radius: 0.25em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.25em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -moz-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.25em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -webkit-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.25em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);"><span style="text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em rgba(0,0,0,0.5);">Jack Merridew Puppeter template.svg  18:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Bali ultimate and Jack Merridew have intentionally included redlinks and removed what are widely accepted reliable sources to this AfD. It appears that there is some POV on their part while I am attempting to include fair information.
 * Comment

Some of the unfair information that has been included by

Bali:
 * removal of "Grabby award" : ,
 * intentionally creating/restoring redlinks:
 * including clearly POV info:

Jack:
 * intentionally creating/restoring redlinks:, ,
 * removal of "Grabby award":, , , ,

Now, this list goes on and on, I'm not going to bore anybody. I'm willing to come to consensus, but that means on all our parts. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The anon is being disruptive and does not seem inclined to stop. The article and porn sites and cites on-offer are ludicrous; the AfD should sort the article out, but it's up to others to sort the anon. Cheers, Jack Merridew 17:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So, Jack, to clarify, I'm not to participate in internal matters and I'm not to edit content, either? Please advise here. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good advice you seem to have gotten there; you also seem to not be taking it, so expect to be blocked, again. *I'm* not seeing much beyond disruption from you. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 17:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Including references is not disruption and your continued insistence that it is will certainly be sorted out. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Pasting any damn unreliable ghit into this project is disruptive. Jack Merridew 18:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It must be very nice, to be able to determine what's reliable and what's not all on your own...for example, not allowing http://www.grabbys.com/ as a reference for the grabby awards. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 72 hours. Please let me know if this resumes after that. Spartaz Humbug! 12:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

User:BigK HeX reported by User:Weakopedia (Result: locked for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: content was already there, arguing for it's removal if unsourced


 * 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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute at WP:NOR:

Comments: Slow edit war over insertion of opinions without source. Contributor feels that unless someone is able to challenge their assertions that the additional information cannot be removed, whilst failing to provide a source to say why the information should be included. Weakopedia (talk) 07:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I protected the page for a week. Discuss don't fight. If you can agree on this before the week is up, let me know and I'll unlock it. Spartaz Humbug! 12:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Wladthemlat reported by User:Hobartimus (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 12:32, 10 April 2010
 * 2nd revert: 13:32, 10 April 2010
 * 3rd revert: 07:58, 11 April 2010
 * 4th revert: 14:57, 11 April 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: much familiar with the rules

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Here he have a user, who is very familiar with the rules of Wikipedia, yet continues to break them repeatedly. It seems that after 5 blocks all for 3RR and edit warring related He continues to edit war some more. All of his edits here remove over 36 000 bytes of content, double the size of our average articles, and over 60 sources also. It is highly evident that this mass deletion of sourced information and blanking has no consensus, but Wladthemat keeps making the same edit over and over again. All the edits are within 26 hours, yet with the other factors (such as past violations) and the repeated blanking which is highly disruptive, I ask that admin action is taken.Hobartimus (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Page protected one month. The version of this article that was nominated for deletion on 26 March looks truly scary. (See Sections 12 and 13 of the article). If this were a BLP, admins would be taking drastic action. Since the accusations that are made in the article are mostly against groups rather than individuals it's not quite the same. Nonetheless a good consensus needs to found about how to fix this article and make it neutral. I'd suggest a WP:Request for comment. A discussion at the WP:Ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard might be another way to get eyes on the problem. Meanwhile, if a compromise is found, the article can be unprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Bonewah reported by User:J.R. Hercules (Result: Bonewah warned; Reporter blocked for 55 hours)
Page 1:

Page 2:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: the Milton Friedman article

the 2008-2010 Icelandic financial crisis article

March 25th for Milton Friedman article:
 * Bonewah reverts, saying that the writers of the articles must be named (in that he is correct), but also making the claim that it be demonstrated the writers are "important". He also says that the references are "editorials" (apparently, he doesn't know the definition of an editorial):
 * Here, Bonewah reverts again, even after the proper reference is made and the writer of the article identified :
 * 3rd Bonewah revision. He says that I must "justify the edits on the Talk Page".A strange thing to say since the edit had already been justified on the Talk Page and to which he had just responded to prior to making his 3rd reversion:
 * 4th Bonewah reversion. Despite his demands being met, his rationale for his reversions keeps changing.

April 8 - 9 (24 hour range) for Milton Friedman article
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

March 25 for 2008–2012 Icelandic financial crisis


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

April 8-11 for 2008–2012 Icelandic financial crisis

Even after this section has already been discussed in Talk, Bonewah continues to delete material while unctiously requesting for it to be "taken to the Talk Page" -- pretending as if no discussion had ever taken place:


 * 1)
 * 2)

April 11: par for the course for this editor, any reversion may be justification at any time and for any reason simply by accusing the other editor of "edit warring":

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: As he had done on my page, I placed a warning template on his Talk Page:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Several contributions by myself on both articles' Talk Pages:      

I had requested page protection for the Milton Friedman article, but the requests was denied:



Comments:

<Bonewah's persistent revisions and his ever-shifting reasons for those reasons -- first he requests discussion on the Talk Page; then, after discussion has taken place, he finds some new reason to revert -- as well as his accusations of "edit-warring" is what's known as "editing in bad faith". J.R. Hercules (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)>
 * Comment - J.R. Hercules was previously blocked on 9 April for edit warring at Milton Friedman, per this 3RR report. He seems to be continuing the war, now against multiple editors, at both Milton Friedman and at 2008–2012 Icelandic financial crisis. Nobody else supports his changes on the Talk pages of these two articles. He is at 4RR in 24 hours on Milton Friedman, but has not broken 3RR on the other.  Bonewah has only reverted twice on each one. I would prefer that a different admin handle the case this time, since I closed the last one. EdJohnston (talk) 21:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - If you had actually bothered to check the links provided either on this case or even on the case submitted Bonewah, you would have seen that Bonewah did indeed revert at least 3x on at least one of the pages cited. How you managed to focus on only my RR's and not the person who actually submitted the report is beyond me. Strangely enough, you term my editing attempts as "warring" while the editors who keep deleting/reverting are somehow *not* warring, even though the reasons they cite are dubious (at best) or just plain made-up. There could be 10,000 more ideologically-biased editors who don't like my particular edits and it would all mean zip as long as the content of the edits follow WP guidelines (which they do). J.R. Hercules (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Reporter blocked for 55 hours. Continuing to edit-war against multiple editors (and consensus on the talkpage) on an article you've just been blocked for edit-warring on (not to mention the Icelandic article) is the very definition of disruption. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

User:DarkHorseSki reported by User:Xenophrenic (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Insertion of links to Campaign for Liberty website


 * 1st revert: 15:51, 11 April 2010
 * 2nd revert: 16:03, 11 April 2010
 * 3rd revert: 20:15, 11 April 2010
 * 4th revert: 22:04, 11 April 2010
 * 5th revert: 22:32, 11 April 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

DarkHorseSki, an apparent single-purpose-account, has been trying to use this Wikipedia article as a coatrack for other obscure groups or organizations. His edits have been reverted by Xenophrenic, ArabicaDark, Goethean and perhaps others by now, but he just keeps inserting inappropriate and unsourced content. Suggestions and requests on the talk page have gone unheeded. In addition, he is now adding personal editorializing to the Wikipedia article here. Thanks in advance for any assistance, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - 24 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Drrll reported by User:Kelseypedia (Result: 72 hours)
Page: and

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Southern_Poverty_Law_Center&oldid=354990010


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Southern_Poverty_Law_Center&diff=354993196&oldid=354990010
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Southern_Poverty_Law_Center&diff=355219522&oldid=355162793
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Southern_Poverty_Law_Center&diff=355256512&oldid=355220416

Here's 4 links from the past 3 days of user repeatedly inserting the word "liberal" anywhere possible into a section concerning critics of Fox News, some quickly approaching 3RR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fox_News_Channel&diff=prev&oldid=354988798 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fox_News_Channel&diff=prev&oldid=354920128 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fox_News_Channel&diff=prev&oldid=355052655 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fox_News_Channel&diff=prev&oldid=355216412

User has been attempting to make exclusively partisan edits to just about every article edited. Has repeatedly tried to insert "liberal" and "leftist leaning" etc. in an explicitly non-NPOV manner that serves no informative purpose and does not further the article's content. It's perhaps more noticeable in user's insistence that Fox News Channel has the word "liberal" precede a priest criticizing one of its hosts, because "it informs the reader" - but user seems to not be taking into account that this is an encyclopedia and people come here for information, not to see the alleged political affiliation of critics of one subject.

Comments: I have not tried to have a conversation with the user. After viewing the user's talk page and seeing the user has been warned repeatedly and blocked twice for such behavior very recently - in fact, 2 days ago user received a warning from an admin to stop making unconstructive edits to the SPLC article and the user has not complied, so based on that strong pattern of past behavior I took it straight here. Had user given me any reason to believe user would be willing to listen and work things out, I would have commented on the talk page. Every indication shows that that would not have happened. Maybe this should have gone in the "edit war" noticeboard, I don't know. I'm still new at reporting, my apologies. Kelseypedia (talk) 07:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The following was posted by Drrll on his talk page and I moved it here at their request. Spartaz Humbug! 18:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not over 3RR but not discussing and its clearly trying to force their POV through edit warring. 72 hours. If they resume after the block ends let me know as they now are on a very short leash. Spartaz Humbug! 12:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

In the first case mentioned by the report, I was simply reverting the SPLC article back to the way it had been for over two years ("organizations it calls hate crimes"), not adding material. Unlike the claims made in the report, I didn't add "leftist-leaning" to an article; instead, I actually removed it from the SPLC article because it was unsourced--please see the SPLC article history. In the second case, my addition to the Fox News Channel article was sourced to the NYT. If you check my edit history, you will see that I often use article Talk pages to discuss controversial changes, but I didn't in these cases. I'll discuss all controversial reverts on the article Talk pages before making them in the future.--Drrll (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Nunquam Dormio reported by Twiga Kali (talk) (Result: Page protected)
. : Time reported: 11:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 18:11, 11 April 2010  (edit summary: "rv - he's back to his old tricks")
 * 2) 06:27, 12 April 2010  (edit summary: "rv - deletion of papers &c")
 * 3) 09:21, 12 April 2010  (edit summary: "rv - fourth deletion by Twiga Kali of papers in Pubmed by Budwig &c")

Comments:

Having some severe problems cleaning up this article which has been used to post commercial links and suffers from exaggerated notability. Current problem involves removing WP:PUFF to non-notable papers/letters/foreign translations that do nothing for the article other than make the subject appear more notable than they really are. Finding it hard to engage other editor in discussion about this. Merely rv's after any edit, despite appeals on talk page to discuss.
 * '''No violation - 3 rv's each - page protected for discussion - note that further edit warring after protection expires may be reason for a block. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

User: 86.175.68.79 reported by User:Snowded (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: here

Original insertion of controversial edit and six reverts this morning, four after warning issued Full record from single purpose IP account here

Warning given here

No move by IP address to talk page - this is part of a pattern of near identical edits by IP addresses in recent week. Partial protection of the page has been requested. Comments:


 * Blocked for 31h. I rolled back the edit again; might be worth taking to RFPP as this is a dynamic IP and I can't really semi the page myself having rolled back. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Logged request earlier today, its moving up the queue -- Snowded TALK  12:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Revws reported by Codf1977 (talk) (Result: Declined)
. : Time reported: 14:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 13:37, 12 April 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 13:48, 12 April 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 14:19, 12 April 2010  (edit summary: "Added sources from US News & World Report and the original 2010 Academic Excellence Award from APHSA")
 * 4) 14:29, 12 April 2010  (edit summary: "It is top ranked, so it notable. Sources are reliable sources not advertisement.")
 * 5) 14:48, 12 April 2010  (edit summary: "It received the 2010 Academic Excellence Award from the American Public Human Services Association and top ranked by US News")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * When a good faith new editor is struggling to write a new article, they should be approached in a helpful and collaborative manner; tagging and templating is not a substitute for discussion. A block for edit-warring would be completely inappropriate here, at least for Revws. CIreland (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Mbz1 reported by User:Vexorg (Result: Withdrawn)
REPORT WITHDRAWN TO AVOID YET ANOTHER TEDIUM OF PEOPLE ARGUING Vexorg (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Christ myth theory, again
The Christ myth theory is once again proving contentious. Large numbers of editors have been making substantial changes very quickly recently. A couple of them are running rough-shod over WP:CON material hashed out in mediation. While I don't think the situation amounts to edit waring, it's darn close. I'd like an admin to please lock the page for a week so we can work some of these issues out on the talk page. Thanks. Eugene (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The mediation was a poor affair and Eugene is having to come to terms with not owning the article anymore. That is not the same as edit warring and as a content dispute I do not know what he hopes to achieve by bringing it here. Sophia ♫  23:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Eugene. The amount of POV pushing from the other side is getting to be ridiculous.  Also, Eugene is not the "owner", although you (Sophia) want to paint him as such.  Since your side cannot provide any RS quotes that say that the theory is mainstream or even a "minority" viewpoint (which you have admitted to in the past that it wasn't, from what I can recall), the theory is fringe and will continue to remain so in the foreseeable future.   Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Fully protected for 3 days. WP:RFPP would've been a better venue for this, actually. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A look at the history over the last couple of months would have shown who has been the major architect of the current article with all its problems. Sophia ♫  23:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks to me as though edits from both "sides" are (or have been) problematic, actually. Have you thought about taking this to dispute resolution, or is that a lost cause by now? Black Kite (t) (c) 23:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Other than the last 3 days most of the recent editing has been by one person. Not healthy for any article and bound to cause problems when that changes. It is also worth looking at Eugene's user page, which makes it clear he feels he is fighting some sort of holy war. Sophia ♫  23:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am aware of this; we have interacted in the past. However, I think it is still worth calling a halt to proceedings on the article for a few days to allow discusion to take place.  If this is not successful, there are other avenues (WP:DR, WP:RFC) that can be followed. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Black Kite, I was in the process of writing up a 3RR report on Eugene when you protected. It took a while because he's engaged in complex partial reverting. I won't repeat it here, but I'd like to add that he has been doing this for a very long time. It has reached the point where it's difficult for anyone he disagrees with to make an edit. It has resulted in a POV article&mdash;in the opinion of several editors in good standing, including uninvolved editors&mdash;that seems poorly researched, and where reliable sources are being kept out simply because Eugene doesn't agree with them. POV categories are added against consensus, and basically anything he doesn't approve of, no matter how reasonable or well-sourced, is likely to be removed. It has led to RfCs, a mediation, two failed FACs, a rejected approach by Eugene to RfAr, and various other DR steps, but it continues. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 00:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Why does this article even exist? It is exactly what Content forking is talking about. This article needs to be merged into Historicity of Jesus. The reason there are so many problems with the article is that its very existence is against policy. --Tango (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 00:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Whilst I think you are right, a lot of interesting information would be lost due to undue weight considerations. Sophia ♫  00:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've left a note on Eugeneacurry's talkpage. Hopefully this will calm down some of the problems.  If not, I have the article watchlisted. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Black Kite, I oppose any attempt to make Eugene the "villain" in this discussion. He has been an excellent editor (although no one is perfect; other than me, of course :-)  ).  There are some editors who simply don't want to acknowledge the best available evidence which is supported by mainstream scholarship, but would rather push their own POV.  The CMT is fringe, and it seems that the next course of action will be to go to mediation.  Thank for protecting the page, but I think the protection needs to be for about a month (or at least for a few weeks) rather than a few days, IMHO.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Bandurist reported by User:Taivo (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

There is no issue to be resolved here. There is a consensus that the Russian names of cities in Ukraine must be listed beneath the Ukrainian names because those Russian names are the most common names found in English:

Comments:

Bandurist is the latest in a long string of Ukrainian nationalist editors who make it their mission to remove all Russian names from Ukrainian-related articles even thought they have been shown time and time again that the Russian names are still often more common in English than the new Ukrainian names. While most of them just remove all references to "Kharkov" (including in book titles), Bandurist was more subtle and made his removal part of a real content edit in order to hide it. For some reason, the Ukrainian vandals aren't targeting all the cities of Ukraine at this time, just Kharkiv. (Taivo (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC))
 * Result - 24 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No. I have no mission to remove all references to "Kharkov". I just happened to have defended my doctorate there and lived there for a time. Previously I studied and lived in Kyiv. I feel that user Taivo is a little bit too enthusiastic about pushing his particular POV, and he is too loose with his labeling of the terms vandal and vandalism. In 5 years of editing and writing Wikipedia articles on aspects that I have some expertise, this is the first block I have ever received. --Bandurist (talk) 11:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Slightly stale war between User:Bigb0x and User:Angelo De La Paz (Result: Protected)
. : Time reported: 15:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1) 10:56, 11 April 2010  (no edit summary)
 * 2) 15:43, 11 April 2010  (no edit summary)
 * 3) 20:45, 11 April 2010  (no edit summary)


 * Two intervening reverts by :


 * 1) 12:14, 11 April 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 355313749 by Bigb0x (talk)")
 * 2) 16:25, 11 April 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 355350470 by Bigb0x (talk)")

Bigbox's last edit reverted by an IP user:
 * 1) 05:15, 12 April 2010 no edit summary

This is slightly stale (about 20 hours since last revert), but these two editors seem to have some mutual animosity. See Talk:Miss World 2010. If temporary blocking is not warranted, the two may bear some watching. Cnilep (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

'''I edited the above-metioned article with right reasons that are stated in the following sources:

http://abs-cbnnews.com/entertainment/04/10/10/venus-raj-given-chance-reclaim-bb-pilipinas-universe-title http://globalbeauties.com/blog/?p=891

'''As you can read, she has been given the CHANCE to get the crown back, but she is still DETHRONED at the moment. She is still NOT the representative of the Philippines nor anyone else.

Besides, it is not 100% clear that she will get her valid passport, because it is combined with a lot of problems.

'''Whoever edits what I edited, you are either a nationalistic Filipino who is blinded by nationalism or can´t read at all. Sorry to say.''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigb0x (talk • contribs)
 * Result - Page protected five days. A number of editors are indignantly reverting, but leaving no comment on the talk page. This makes it hard for people to reach a consensus. Continued reverts which are not explained on Talk may lead to blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 13:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

User:DanS76 reported by User:Ahnan (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

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

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

Comments:

Help! DanS76 repeatedly deleted the controversy section I've added. He cited copyright violations when I only copied the quotes of the person involved. I did not copy the whole article. I believe that this is permissable under fair use.


 * AS per the talk page of the article[], the only things I removed were copyvio text (which Ahnan only has to at least paraphrase to get it approved) and the content from political blogs, which failes the WP:NPOV and WP:RS tests. Another editor also added that WP:BLP could also be an issue with the original article as it was.DanS76 (talk) 03:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 *  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Self-report & User:208.57.67.57 reported by User:Blaxthos (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: original version


 * 1st revert: 14:53
 * 2nd revert: 14:54
 * 3rd revert: 14:58
 * 4th revert: 15:08

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 3 Warnings

Comments:
 * I realized I also reverted four times. Huggle makes this far too easy -- I will be more careful, and I'm not reverting this article again (actually have put huggle back on the shelf for now)
 * While two of the 3RR diffs differ somewhat, the content is basically the same and it's obvious the IP is here for self-promotion.
 * Article needs to be reverted; probably should check all the changes by this IP (going back several days)

//Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no attempt at discussion either on the article talkpage or the IP's talkpage, and you used machine reverts without making any effort to leave informative edit summaries explaining why you objected to his edits. Put yourself in the guy's shoes and it's easy to see why he would keep edit warring just as stubbornly as you have. Try to start a real discussion, and if he isn't willing to discuss you can always file a new report later. Try seeking outside input. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 06:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

5Proof reported by User:Zhanzhao (Result: 24 hours 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: [[] Note that was the warning given after he repeatedly went against general editor consensus.

Comments:

5Proof is apparently a single purpose account[] created to work on City Harvest Church, particularly just to re-add in disputed text on the controversy of Benny Hinnes to the article. The general consensus on the talk page, as well as when it move to COI [], was that either the whole section be removed, or if it stays, to leave only a cursory comment and a link since the disputed info added did not relate any way to the main article.

I have warned 5Proof a number of times, both on his use page (which he does not reply to) as well as the article's talk page (which he actively comments in) as per the diffs provided above, but the editor chooses to persist on his reverts despite the general consensus reached on both the talk and COI.

It should be noted that another editor has already warned him that the disputed section as it is may fall under WP:COATRACK[] but the editor has either ignored or chosen to act against it.

It could be possible that this account may be a sock as it was only created to apparently add support for the inclusion of the disputed section in the article. Zhanzhao (talk) 04:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

 Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Jeannedeba reported by Peter Ian Staker (talk) (Result: Protected)
. : Time reported: 17:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 17:03, 13 April 2010  (edit summary: "rv, this doesn't seem like an improvement, membership was mandatory by law. Discuss first, this text has been stable for years")
 * 2) 17:15, 13 April 2010  (edit summary: "restored important fact")
 * 3) 17:25, 13 April 2010  (edit summary: "rv unproductive changes by disruptive user to text that has been stable for a long time. Discuss changes first.")
 * 4) 17:36, 13 April 2010  (edit summary: "rv disruption, restore stable text. The sources in these cases has been moved to Early life of Pope Benedict XVI at some point, this is just a summary section")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Peter Ian Staker (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Note. I have not reverted this page 4 times, as you can tell from the page history. User:Peter Ian Staker is a POV pusher who's not contributing productively to the article in any way, and who is just making unproductive POV changes like this to the article that have mostly been reverted by other users before. In this case I have merely restored the stable version, that has been stable for at least four years, and asked him to discuss his proposed changes at the talk page, which he refused, preferring to edit-war his changes unilaterally into the article. In addition to make unilateral changes he is disruptively abusing the fact template, as all this material is properly sourced, notably in the main article on the Early life of Pope Benedict XVI (the section in question is a summary of that article). Jeannedeba (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

There are clearly four reverts there. I will myself not revert again so long as it does not introduce any further BLP violations. Peter Ian Staker (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have reverted this page 3 times as you have done yourself. Making two unrelated edits directly after a revert don't count as reverts. I could have made all these three edits in one edit if I wanted to.
 * (cur | prev) 17:19, 13 April 2010 Jeannedeba (talk | contribs) m (125,043 bytes) (→Early life: 1927–51: by law) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 17:15, 13 April 2010 Jeannedeba (talk | contribs) (125,036 bytes) (restored important fact) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 17:03, 13 April 2010 Jeannedeba (talk | contribs) (124,883 bytes) (rv, this doesn't seem like an improvement, membership was mandatory by law. Discuss first, this text has been stable for years) (undo)  Jeannedeba (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Peter, your complaint is going to be rejected as your warning occurred AFTER the her last edit (17:37 vs 17:36.) In order to be a vio, she would have had to make the edit after the warning. I won't close lest I be seen as involved, but that's the fact of the matter.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Peter Ian Staker reported by Jeannedeba
User:Peter Ian Staker tried to introduce/edit-war his unilateral changes into the article 4 times, without being willing to discuss his edits to a the article first:

1st

2nd

3rd

4th

The text has been stable for a long time, and the user in question has a history of making disruptive edits that have been reverted by several editors. Particularly in a high-profile biography, such as Pope Benedict XVI, it's unacceptable to edit-war controversial changes into the article without first discussing them and obtaining consensus for making the changes. The changes by User:Peter Ian Staker were clearly not an improvement and were reverted as obviously disruptive. The abuse of this page to file a false 3RR report is disruptive as well. Jeannedeba (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Whats your point? The first two are fixing defective use of sources, and not reverts at all. You reverted back to a false deceptive version that did not reflect the source. Peter Ian Staker (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you're not "fixing" anything, you're being disruptive. And yes, they are reverts. All the text in that section, that has been there for years, is well sourced and the templates were clearly added with a disruptive/pointy intent. Jeannedeba (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI: nothing is a BLP is sourcing exempt. I could have dumped every unsourced bit if I chose to. Funny how it's sourced but I was able to add fact tags. You're also being utterly disruptive by ignoring the fact multiple people have been pulling apart your Catholic apologist editing repeatedly on the talk page and widely disagreeing with you. But lets shant allow facts to get in the way. Peter Ian Staker (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am aware that you are trying to game the system. No, nothing in that section is unsourced. A section in the most high-profile biography on Wikipedia that has been stable for many years wouldn't have survived if it was unsourced. You're trying to edit war POV into the article and abuse fact templates to make a point and cause disruption, end of story. Jeannedeba (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You're one foot in the personal attacks grave, dear. Peter Ian Staker (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking of... Talk:Pope_Benedict_XVI is full of personal attacks by yourself. I'm tired of your disruption. Jeannedeba (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

What! Yes, I'm clearly wholly unproductive with things like insisting that our text match sources and opening discussions on talk page that Jeannie has deemed beneath her. Peter Ian Staker (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are making unproductive and POV unilateral changes to a text that has been stable for several years in a high-profile biography, refusing to discuss the edits first, preferring to edit-war. Jeannedeba (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean like you calling a British citizen a nut job here. Your doily is quite filthy. Peter Ian Staker (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is like watching two rhinos fight in restaurant. At least TRY to maintain decorum. Pistols away, please. -- King Öomie 18:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Page protected for 3 days by User:SlimVirgin. EdJohnston (talk) 04:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

User:AndersWaglen and User:193.90.160.134 reported by User:ScottMHoward (Result: 31h, warning)
Page:

User being reported:

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: (Added after this entry to the administrators, but at least it now exists to prevent further disruption)

Comments: User has been warned multiple times regarding the edit war and even admits himself that he is edit warring on the edit summary of "3rd revert" diff resulting in blanking the page. User has created an account (AndersWaglen) after a "final warning" was issued assumably in attempts to bypass any reverting rules. ~ [ Scott M. Howard  ]:[  Talk  ] ~ 20:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Another admin has blocked the IP for 31 hours. I warned AndersWaglen. EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

User:222.64.216.207 reported by - Barek (talk • contribs) - (Result: 24h)
. : Time reported: 05:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 04:34, 14 April 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 355900541 by Themfromspace (talk) -- You are crazy")
 * 2) 04:58, 14 April 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 355903788 by Drmies (talk) -- These are best sites for travellers")
 * 3) 05:03, 14 April 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 355904978 by Drmies (talk) -- I'm telling you nothing is perfect, ok...???")
 * 4) 05:17, 14 April 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 355905620 by Drmies (talk) -- I don't like the way you are treating me, man")
 * 5) 05:32, 14 April 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 355908439 by Barek (talk)-- You like to hassle people like me, do you...???")
 * 6) 05:38, 14 April 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 355908925 by Barek (talk) -- I'm telling you that I do things in batches not one by one, OK...????")


 * Diff of warning: 05:32, 14 April 2010

—- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: On the same page, see also the identical edits by:
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)<
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)<
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)<


 * by User:Materialscientist. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 06:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Gd21091993 reported by User:Ely1 (Result: Blocked)
Sorry for my bad English, and sorry, I'm not fully understand how to request blocking here. the user edit the same page, French colonial empire on almost every wiki. he has been block here because of an edit war, and has been block for infinity in 2 wikis. Ely1 (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Page:
 * User being reported:
 * I am the sysop on he.wiki who blocked the IP there (my user page). I'v performed the block after checking on some other wikis for use of the image on the article, and concluded that it's an edit war gone inter-wiki. Never quite understood en.wiki guidelines in this respect, but if this is allowed to go on it will return to other wikis, and force us to block the entire article for sysops only, which will be unfortunate. Havelock (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Gd21091993 has a total of 18 contributions on the English Wikipedia, dating from February 2010. The majority of these contributions are reverts of the French colonial empire article to restore an image called File:13Etendue de l'Empire Français.png, which he strongly prefers over the alternative. Since the account is only here for edit-warring purposes, an indefinite block seems correct. I've asked him to respond here. If there is no satisfactory response, I'm planning to enact the block. He was previously blocked in February for the same reason, but only for a short time. He has never posted anything to a talk page, either here or at the French wiki, which is where his account was created. Here are the sulutil results for his account. EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and blocked him. He's had ample time to make his case, but hasn't lifted a finger. If this continues across other projects, you can talk to the Stewards on meta to request a sitewide ban. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 06:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks. Ely1 (talk) 10:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Epeefleche reported by User:ܥܝܪܐܩ (Result: Self-revert)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of attempt by User:Lihaas to resolve dispute:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

User has been reverted by two editors and is keen to brand everyone who disagrees with him a "vandal". ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 04:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If it quacks like a duck.  Vandal edits are not subject to the 3-revert rule. Vandalism includes "any ... removal ... of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia."  Lihaas and ܥܝܪܐܩ have tag-teamed the same deletion edits without anything close to an appropriate explanation.  I left explanatory edit summaries and talk page comments (such as  and  on Lihaas's page without response), but they have left edit summaries that range from empty to misleading to untrue.

For example, the first revert above -- which reverted the deletion by Lihaas of the phrase Islamist (as well as the RS refs supporting the textual reference) which he made w/the completely misleading edit summary "(talk -- consensus)". Yet no consensus for the deletion of proper text, with proper text, existed on the talk page (where I had discussed it), his talk page (where I had left messages), or my talk page. As I also pointed out in my second edit summary above "Per talk page -- no justifiable reason has been given for these deletions".

ܥܝܪܐܩ then tag-teamed with Lihaas, reverted me, and stated an untruth in his edit summary as his justification: "Reverted to revision 355851721 by Lihaas; he didn't delete anything." That was untrue. Obviously, Lihaas had deleted material--notably, the phrase Islamist, its refs, and a "see also" line. Assuming good faith, one might have expected that the reaction of ܥܝܪܐܩ would be to acknowledge his error. He didn't. Furthermore, instead -- he reverted again. This time, without any edit summary whatsoever. Clearly, as ܥܝܪܐܩ opened this, he is capably of writing an edit summary. Since did not write any in his second revert, and his edit summary in his first revert was untrue, it was quite proper to view his edit as vandalism. I would ask that appropriate action be taken. BTW -- I've for the moment reverted my last revert, but think the material that was tag-team deleted with accompanying misstatement and lie should be back in the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The word 'lie' sounds like a personal attack; try to speak carefully on noticeboards. You're accusing your opponents of being socks and vandals as well as liars, and your evidence of any of this is slim. Try to work it out on Talk. It is not unheard of that people get blocked for the language they use in official discussions. EdJohnston (talk) 05:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify. I don't know that they are socks (nor do I think I said that they are socks).  I think however a sock investigation is in order, given the timing and similarity of the edits.  As to the lie, untruth, mistatement -- that is precisely what the act was.  The person said that I lied when I said that Lihaas had deleted material.  I did not.  Lihaas had in truth deleted material.  The evidence that he lied was not "slim", but is right there above, and when I pointed out his misstatement he reacted as I describe above.  The assumption of good faith is rebuttable by an editor's actions.  This is a classic case.  My understanding is that it is not uncivil to call a lie/untruth/mistatement what it is (otherwise, there would be no essay called Don't lie) -- but please correct me if I've missed something.  And as far as your suggestion that I talk -- as you can see from the above diffs, I've left over 6 messages on talk pages.  What I'm getting back, as you can also see, are untruths, blank edit summaries (in response to an edit summary pointing out the editor was wrong), and meritless 3RR reports -- I don't think that political correctness requires me not to call an untruth an untruth, or you not to address the editor who brought this after making a) a revert with an untruth as the edit summary, followed by b) a revert with no edit summary whatsoever.  WP:NPA, as I understood it, stands for the proposition that accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence (often evidence takes the form of diffs) can be a personal attack -- but here you have the diffs.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your first revert of me:
 * Reverted 1 edit by ܥܝܪܐܩ identified as vandalism to last revision by Epeefleche.
 * Lihaas's edit doesn't seem like vandalism to me.
 * Your second revert of me:
 * reverting vandal deletions of material that is proper in the article, where no reasons given.
 * I didn't see any deletions, just a small reworking, which I thought was better.
 * I haven't seen either you nor Lihaas before, but I reverted your edits for the reasons above. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I stand by what I said before. The diffs reflecting the deletions, your first edit summary with the misstatement, and your second revert/diff without any edit summary explaining your action--after having been alerted to the deletions, are there, presented by you, above--showing precisely what I describe above.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - No action, since Epeefleche agreed to undo his last change. This seems to be a dispute over how much prominence to give the word 'Islamist' when referring to the subway terrorists. I recommend that both sides try to work this out on the talk page. The reasoning offered there does not seem very thorough yet. If no agreement can be reached, try the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 04:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Yewhock reported by User:Seb az86556 and User:Rjanag (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: version 355883631


 * 1st revert: version 355885113 (reverted this)
 * 2nd revert: version 355887381 (reverted this)
 * 3rd revert: version 355906027 (reverted this)
 * 4th revert: version 355910129 (reverted this

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: made after second revert, made after third revert

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: at Talk:July 2009 Ürümqi riots#comments please

Comments: Yewhock is repeatedly inserting a long, irrelevant rant into a controversial article. The talk page has a discussion with 4 editors agreeing that this stuff doesn't belong; Yewhock has ignored that discussion for several hours now and continued inserting his stuff. Obvious edit-warring behavior. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - 31 hours for edit warring. If Yewhock wants to edit controversial topics, he needs to participate on article talk pages and accept whatever consensus is found there. EdJohnston (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Sentinel R reported by User:Kuebie (Result: Declined)
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

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

Comments:


 * Both of you are edit warring; he has only one revert more than you, and you made several unexplained reverts before ever bothering to start a discussion. Furthermore, it seems like the issue is already resolved: the user has agreed at his talk page that if someone turns his pictures into a collage he won't complain, and you have already asked someone to make one. Some of his comments were mildly incivil, but so were some of yours. I see no reason why a block is necessary. (Also, for what it's worth, there is no policy nor consensus against using multiple images in "X people" infoboxes; take a look at Filipino people, for instance.) <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 12:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Slrubenstein reported by Captain Occam (talk) (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1st revert: 20:59, 12 April 2010
 * 2nd revert: 21:39, 12 April 2010
 * 3rd revert: 11:14, 13 April 2010
 * 4th revert: 14:23, 13 April 2010
 * 5th revert: 09:20, 14 April 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: Talk:Race_and_intelligence

Comments: I suspect that Slrubenstein is not the only user who’s recently been edit warring / violating 3RR on this article, but I’m reporting him because he’s the only user (as far as I know) who’s continued to edit war even after being warned about it on his userpage. In response to my warning, he left a personal attack on my userpage in which he called me a “racist”, denied violating 3RR, and accused me of edit warring, even though I’ve only reverted the article once in the past two days. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Protected: There's obviously a lot of edit-warring going on, so I simply protected the article. --  tariq abjotu  18:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

User:24.154.251.183 reported by Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  (Result: Blocked 24 hours )
. : Time reported: 21:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 20:48, 14 April 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 356039044 by Chmod 777 (talk)")
 * 2) 20:50, 14 April 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 356039779 by Chmod 777 (talk)")
 * 3) 20:52, 14 April 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 356040132 by Chmod 777 (talk)")
 * 4) 20:55, 14 April 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 356040582 by NeilN (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

-- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  21:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was trying to help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.251.183 (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * by User:Ohnoitsjamie. Blanking an edit warring report made against you is not generally a good idea. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Fellytone reported by annoynmous (Result: declined)

 * Three-revert rule violation on article Institute for Policy Studies


 * User basically copied all sources from a biased self published blog in order to slant article politically. He then violated the 3rr when I attempted to revert his baised edits. In edit he also used insulting language, calling me a "fucking Ignoramus".


 * In case your wondering it's the link labeled Emerson Vermaat that contains all the sources copied from the blog I mentioned.


 * <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 04:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Fellytone reported by User:annoynmous (Result: Fully protected)
Page:
 * Three-revert rule violation on

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 19:40, 14 April 2010 Annoynmous (talk | contribs)


 * 1st revert: 01:30, 15 April 2010 Fellytone (talk | contribs) (11,295 bytes) (reverted vandalism)
 * 2nd revert: 02:51, 15 April 2010 Fellytone (talk | contribs) (14,180 bytes) (reverted biased edits...stalin and hitler would be proud of you)
 * 3rd revert: 03:18, 15 April 2010 Fellytone (talk | contribs) (14,180 bytes) (It's not my fault that you are brain dead and can't even see that most of these sources aren't even from right-wing sources you fucking ignoramus.)
 * 4th revert: 03:33, 15 April 2010 Fellytone (talk | contribs) (14,196 bytes) (If anything, you are violating 3rr. You are intentionally blanking sourced information.)

Comments:


 * I don't know how to add the the reverts to this page.

Fully protected by SlimVirgin. Minima c  ( talk ) 06:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

User:OldTauntonian reported by 193.195.197.254 (talk) (Result: blocked, 31 hours)
. : Time reported: 14:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 08:52, 15 April 2010  (edit summary: "Gazette Legal Issue")
 * 2) 09:31, 15 April 2010  (edit summary: "Reverted Gazette Legal information")
 * 3) 10:29, 15 April 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 356145765 by OutragedOfOake (talk) Indeed, I agree. Please discuss it before undoing. Thanks.")
 * 4) 10:44, 15 April 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 356146561 by OutragedOfOake (talk)Which discussion? You haven't discussed anything, but have removed the edits. Rev")
 * 5) 10:51, 15 April 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 356148171 by 90.192.34.137 (talk) I'm afraid there is no consensus. Reverted.")
 * 6) 11:15, 15 April 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision by OutragedOfOake (talk) A consensus of the MP editing his entry along with his party members? Reverted.")
 * 7) 13:55, 15 April 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 356171625 by 93.186.31.204 (talk) Reverted.")
 * 8) 14:03, 15 April 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 356174590 by 193.195.197.254 (talk) Reverted.")

Comments:

I've put up the coi template, and I may remove it in-case he gets blocked. Minima c  ( talk ) 14:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * OldTauntonian acknowledged the 3RR warning here and then reverted again. Intent doesn't get more clear-cut than that. —C.Fred (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Turian reported by User:Aspects (Result: Self-revert)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1st revert: 18:33 14 April 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 356012804 by Yvesnimmo (talk) Prior was better, seek consensus to change")
 * 2nd revert: 02:05 15 April 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 356091261 by Turian; Ryan said Mike was not in the bottom three, and every who was not in the bottom three was in the top 6.... (TW)")
 * 3rd revert: 02:07 15 April 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Yvesnimmo; No, please watch the show again. (TW)")
 * 4th revert: 02:13 15 April 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 356092227 by Turian; Ryan stated it himself, take it to the talk page, where a discussion is already started. (TW)")
 * 5th revert: 16:14 15 April 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Qdiazissipom; Not worth noting. (TW)")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 02:18 15 April 2010 Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning deleted: 02:18 15 April 2010

Comments: While these are not five revets changing back the same edit, they are still five reverts in a 24-hour perioud. Because of this there is no previous version reverted to or an attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page. However the quickly reverted warning I left in the same minute I placed it or the quickly reverted concern I had about a reversion Turian made a minute after I placed it,, shows that it is hard to discuss this editor's behaviors with them when they just delete those concerns and make no attempts to address them. Aspects (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The first was a reversion that conflicted with the current styling consensus of American Idol articles. The second was a removal of incorrect information. The third was a reversion of the same info as the second. The fourth was a mistake on my part. The fifth is a unnecessary addition.
 * This isn't your normal article, especially since there was an edit about every minute for an hour. This user is just being disruptive. –<span style="font-family: cursive, Serif; color:#000000;">Turian  ( talk )  17:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So now, people can blocked for reverting back to MoS and removing incorrect information? –<span style="font-family: cursive, Serif; color:#000000;">Turian  ( talk )  17:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Turian, no one has been blocked so don't get ahead of the situation. I will say that this is unwarranted and unmerited. Turian has not been edit warring. Hie edit/revision style is brusk and uncomplimentary but he is not warring. The above are not his only edits and they are not even good sampling of his edits. I don't know what the impetus behind this report is but I have not found this to be the case. Padillah (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are still limited to three reverts outside of vandalism whatever the reason. If erroneous information keeps being added my suggestion is to apply for page protection if another revert will take you outside of 3RR.  If edits go against consensus and the other editor won't desist then report them at ANI. Betty Logan (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please allow me to back-peddle quickly with every possible ounce of remorse. I was looking at the base American Idol page, not the Season 9 page. Turian, you should have heeded the 3RR warning left and taken it to AN/I or 3O or RFC or someplace that could help. Taking on edits like this yourself is not productive. Padillah (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Taking it to ANI is overcomplicated and utterly unnecessary. This is being blown way out of proportion. –<span style="font-family: cursive, Serif; color:#000000;">Turian  ( talk )  19:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Taking something like this to AN/I or AN3 will do one very important thing: It will get you out of the middle of it. If you had gotten someone else involved you would have had someone to explain the other side to you or someone to uphold your side of the argument to others. More editors is never a bad idea. Padillah (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And it's a waste of time when people agree with me when I revert it. I am not one who likes wasting time, and ANI is a normally a massive waste of time. –<span style="font-family: cursive, Serif; color:#000000;">Turian  ( talk )  19:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Then expect to get called out like this on a regular basis. Edit warring is against policy, even if you are right. As long as you keep making your own rules instead of sticking with policy you will be swimming upstream. This is the second time you have demonstrated that you feel you are above policy. You do not get to make your own rules, no matter how right you think you are. If you are told you are breaking 3RR and you continue to revert you have broken 3RR, it's not that hard to understand. That's what AN/I brings you, someone else to say "Turian's right stop reverting him" then you can edit all you want and the situation is over. I don't understand, what makes you think you get to break policy and get away with it? Padillah (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * They all concern completely different things. Had it been the same thing and in quick succession, I would have to agree with you. I am not above policy, but I am saying people like to fuck around and waste time on trivial matters. I wasn't edit warring. I had no ill intentions. And no one reverted me, except for one instance where I agreed they were right. Sound like warring to you? –<span style="font-family: cursive, Serif; color:#000000;">Turian  ( talk )  00:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - No action, since Turian agreed to undo his last revert. I hope that he will take note of Padillah's comments in the discussion above. EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

User:RelHistBuff reported by User:Wrotesolid (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert: (the actual violation of 3RR) My error, was third revert Wrotesolid (talk) 04:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The article as previously written referred to Thomas Cranmer, who was condemned for treason and then separately tried and condemned for heresy unqualifiedly as a martyr', which is the Anglican POV. While Catholics, for instance, do not consider him a martyr, they will concede his status as a martyr to Anglican believers. This is no different from the difference between calling Jesus "the messiah" versus calling Jesus "the Christian messiah", the latter which even Jews, for example, would concede. Following WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV I modified one instance of the word by specifying "martyr" to "Anglican martyr" and changed the word "martyrdom" in the section head to the npov "execution". Also, the article summary also spoke of Cranmer's trials as happening upon the accession of Mary I, but in fact sentence from the first trial was delayed, and the second trial and execution occurred halfway through Mary's reign. The summary implied a factual inaccuracy, my edit mentioned the separation of the events.

My edits were reverted wholesale with commands in the summary to "stop it" and not to make changes unless I had consensus on the talk page. This amounts to ownership, which was made clear to the editor in question. My edits were characterized as pushing an anti-Anglican POV on the talk page. Yet they consisted of nothing more than specifications to remove POV bias and disambiguations which could not be factually disputed. The word martyr was not removed from the body of the article, and no description of Cranmenr as a heretic, a traitor or any other judgment was added.

Editor RelHistBuff was warned of his edit warring and his closeness to violating WP:3RR. While compromise was reached on adding the word Protestant, the other edits with new wording and a reference were again reverted wholesale.

I request that the reverting editor be admonished. The edits I request are factual and motivated by WP:NPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. I request that his last edit, in violation of WP:3RR be reverted by an admin.Wrotesolid (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, what is claimed to be the 4th and 5th revert are exactly the same edit. The 1st revert was over 24 hours ago. If an admin would examine my edits, I did not break the 3RR rule. My final edit, was not a revert. I made changes exactly on what was being discussed on the talk page, i.e., the addition of the adjective "Protestant" and the change from "when" to "after". Talk page discussions were ensuing. However, Wrotesolid seemed a bit strident and continued to push for changes using fairly strong language See talk page. My responses were calm and I do believe this can still be resolved through the talk page. In my opinion, Wrotesolid's ANI notification is premature. RelHistBuff (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing out the incorrect diff above, I have corrected it. The first two diffs are evidence of the edit warring. The last three were all today. following is in error, were only 3 reverts, and see below, edit warring is still a problme. [You are indeed in factual violation of 3RR as I had warned you. [Only 3 reverts, see below - Wrotesolid (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)]   Regardless of whether they were done as reverts or as new edits, three times today, the 15th, at 13:57,  16:17 and at 17:31, you reverted the neutral word word "execution" to the POV term "martyrdom" in the section heading.  Three times today, the fifteenth, at 13:57,  16:17 and at 17:31, you reverted the fourth paragraph of the summary from an accurate statement of the (2 1/2 year's) delay between the guilty verdict for high treason and the execution for heresy.  This  edit should be reversed as a violation of 3RR as well as being less accurate and less neutral than the prior wording.


 * I am not exactly sure of what my "fairly strong language" of which you complain is said to consist.  It would be nice if you would quote it or provide a diff so I can know if I have been uncivil.


 * In any case it is hard for me to understand why, other than a possible sense of ownership on your behalf, you resist an accurate statement that "Having actively opposed the accession of Mary I, a Roman Catholic, Cranmer was tried and condemned to death for high treason in 1553. The sentence was postponed, allowing reactionary Catholic forces to press for a trial for heresy" and insist on reverting it to the misleading statement that "Cranmer was tried for treason and heresy after Mary I, a Roman Catholic, came to the throne" as if this were all one event.  Your removal of my reference to a Catholic source  blaming reactionary Catholic forces for the heresy trial as "POV"  is absurd.  It is an admission against interest - a confession of Catholic responsibility by a Catholic speaking with the imprimatur of the Church in a verifiable, notable and authoritative Catholic source.


 * Given that your only response to my edits has been wholesale reversion and the implication of a POV motive on my account, I am not prepared to continue in an edit war with you. Hence my request for administrative help. Wrotesolid (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not go over the 3RR limit which says the violation occurs when there are "more than three reverts" in a 24 hour period. As I was responding on the talk page, I do not understand why you decided to immediately take this ANI. As for the claim of strong language, you stated that I "commanded" you to stop; no, I simply asked you to stop. You use bold typeface on the talk page (equivalent to shouting). You place warnings on my talk page and accuse me of ownership when I am simply disagreeing with your contribution and arguing that scholars use the exact same wording. My request is that you go back to the talk page rather than wikilawyering here. --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, there were only 3 reverts so far by you in the last 24 hours. I corrected the above.  I was wrong.


 * Selective use of bold and italics for emphasis is not shouting, all caps is. I will refrain from using bold on your talk page in the future, but there are really nasty red 3RR warnings that I prefer to avoid even more.


 * The fact remains that you are edit warring. Your wholesale owner-like reverts have no wikipedia rationale. You cannot deny that "execution" is a factual description of the event.  I have not deleted reference to the fact that he is an Anglican martyr from the article, and the summary paragraph as you wish it written is inaccurate.  Two trials with verdicts two and a half years apart are not one event occuring after Mary's accession.  Your objections to my reference, that for Catholics to say that Catholics were responsible for Cranmer's trial for heresy, is POV is odd to say the least. aAd since you have not offered any alternatives but have simply expressed ownership I have brought the matter here.  I don't want you sanctioned.  I want the wholesale reverts with no WP rationale to stop.  I suggest you restore my referenced wording of the two trials as separate events.  If you want to change "execution" to "death" or "execution at the hands of the Catholics" in the section head or have some other wording that is fine, but section heads are supposed to be NPOV and "martyrdom for Protestantism" or "execution at the hands of Catholics", while acceptable from an NPOV standpoint, is simply too wordy.


 * As it stands I believe you are arguing that I have the right to restore the edits one more time today without violating 3RR myself. I would rather avoid that.Wrotesolid (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Page protected one week. Both parties seem very stubborn. Wrotesolid is full of ideas but seems to have no inclination to wait until consensus is reached. Wrotesolid should not bring cases to this board when he has reverted exactly as often as the other side. I assume he is not requesting that he himself be blocked. It might be helpful if someone would open up a WP:Request for comment. EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, EdJohnston. I have quite specifically asked above that no one be blocked. My last edit was in the assumption that no response was forthcoming from this board, since all the other listings seemed to have been addressed but this one. I will quite happily try a request for comment. Wrotesolid (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

User:DeltoidNoob reported by User:JohnBlackburne (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 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 seems to be a WP:SPA focussed on Mormonism, and was contributing POV edits to this article before today's fun.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 19:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a new user who may not be aware of the WP:3RR rule. I left a warning on his talk page, but exercised discretion not to block yet. Sometimes to educate is better than to block. We'll see what happens. CO GDEN  19:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Fellytone reported by Theglowpt4 (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 02:14, 6 April 2010 Theglowpt4 (talk | contribs) m (1,120 bytes) (Deleted reference to Hedges' views regarding socialism, as it is irrelevant to the content of this entry and runs counter to neutrality guidelines.)


 * 1st revert: 03:21, 15 April 2010 Fellytone (talk | contribs) (1,637 bytes) (it is relevant to the article. Also the claim is sourced so stop vandalising the page)
 * 2nd revert: 03:21, 15 April 2010 Fellytone (talk | contribs) m (1,274 bytes) (Undid revision 356099064 by Annoynmous (talk))
 * 3rd revert: 04:51, 15 April 2010 Fellytone (talk | contribs) (1,636 bytes)
 * 4th revert: 22:23, 15 April 2010 Fellytone (talk | contribs) (1,636 bytes) (Reverted vandalism)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 04:38, 15 April 2010 Theglowpt4 (talk | contribs) (3,887 bytes)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (cur | prev) 22:17, 15 April 2010 Theglowpt4 (talk | contribs) (8,519 bytes)

22:20, 15 April 2010 Theglowpt4 (talk | contribs) (8,810 bytes)

Comments:

The dispute revolves around the tag word 'socialist' being used to describe Chris Hedges, the authour of the book that is the article's subject. There have been a couple of posts on the discussion page arguing against the inclusion of this tag on the basis that it is not a NPOV, to which none of the supporters of its use have responded.

The editor has persisted in edit warring behaviour even after a warning on his talk page. Fellytone did not attempt any contribution to the talk page before most of his edits, despite the fact that the page history shows several reverts over exactly the same dispute. When Fellytone did post on the talk page, his comments were less than conciliatory, and the reverts continued despite the discussion. In addition, Fellytone marked a revert as a minor edit, flouting just about every guideline there is for that type of change. P.S. My apologies for the links, I did not have time to learn how to wrap them around text. --Theglowpt4 (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - 31 hours for edit warring. In closing the case this way, I was influenced by seeing a previous 4RR by Fellytone at Institute for Policy Studies which escaped sanction at the time, and the terms "brain dead" and "fucking ignoramus" in Fellytone's edit summary on that other article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Squash Racket reported by User:Umumu (Result: Submitter blocked)
NOTE: User:Umumu/User:Iaaasi/User:Bonaparte case confirmed.

Page :

User being reported:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert: (the same undo, made by User:Hobartimus )
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

He brought false arguments for the revert:

Transylvania is an acquired region of romania + "he was born a Romanian" without mentioning valid doubts; Romanian cnezes without showing them as part of the Hungarian nobility etc. invalid arguments?

1. "he was born a Romanian" without mentioning valid doubts

In fact the text he refers to is "He was most probably born a Romanian" and the word "probably " presents clearly a doubt, according to the text " according to the great majority of sources — of Romanian origin" from another section of the article (formulation which was present in the article for a long time and was accepted by all the editors) => false argument

2. "Transylvania is an acquired region of romania"

In fact the text from the article, that he reverts, is clear and correct: "Voivode of Transylvania (historical region of Romania, then part of the Kingdom of Hungary)". It is necessary to mention that, because a casual user would not understand the situation of that territory, especially because that paragraph presents John Hunyadi's legacy in Romania. It is written clearly that Transylvania was not part of Romania in that period (15th century)=> false argument

3. "Romanian cnezes without showing them as part of the Hungarian nobility"

The text he refers to is ''It is hardly coincidental that the mass ennoblement of Romanian cnezes is linked to the name of John Hunyadi, for this great general had grown up among them and understood their aspirations. When he served as Transylvania's voivode and Székely count (the first time that the two offices were held by one man), Hunyadi drew into his retinue not only Hungarian and Székely retainers but also several Romanian cnezes.'' and it is an exact quote from a work which was accepted by Squash Racket himself as being reliable (it is a Hungarian source, so it can't be accused of being anti_hungarian) => false argument

By WP:WIKIHOUNDING me, he reverted the referenced information I had added to another article in the same day:

Page :


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

All the data I had added are taken from "Documents from the Nations’ Society " (cvasi-neutral source) and from an English (neutral) source:, so we can't talk about "inflammatory POV language"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:, here  or here. He continued the edit war even after this

Additional arguments for disciplinary measures:

- he knows the wiki policy about reverting: " I won't repeat myself for the n-th time. But WP:3RR is still a rule. Squash Racket (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)". Even so, he continues the edit wars. He is gaming the system WP:GAME, by stoppnig his actions after a fewe of reverts, when he thinks he can be accused of WP:3RR - He was uncivil with another user: - He is uncivil by accusing me of sockpuppetry "(That if he is not User:Iaaasi, in that case longer.)", even if the sockpuppet investigation showed clearly that we are different persons, so I am not a sockpuppet of anyone (Umumu (talk) 06:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)) - previous edit war tendency: - on that page he finally gave up and accepted he was wrong (Umumu (talk) 08:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC))


 * Please read this thread, I don't want to repeat myself over and over again.
 * Please note that User:Umumu in an extremely disingenuous way counted another editor's revert (User:Hobartimus) as mine to falsely present this as a WP:3RR violation.
 * The sockpuppet investigation was started by User:Rokarudi, not me. User:Nmate warned me that User:Umumu may be the return of User:Iaaasi. So at least two OTHER editors think he is in fact User:Iaaasi. (Besides, I simply pointed out I wasn't sure whether he was the banned editor returning or not.) Squash Racket (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Umumu's reverts in 24 hours:
 * 1st revert: 07:26, 15 April 2010
 * 2nd revert: 09:00, 15 April 2010
 * 3rd revert: 17:16, 15 April 2010
 * 4th revert: 17:20, 15 April 2010
 * 5th revert: 05:32, 16 April 2010
 * He reverted the work of three different editors. Squash Racket (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Umumu's reverts on 12 April, 2010 (article:John Hunyadi):
 * 1st revert: 07:04, 12 April 2010
 * 2nd revert: 13:14, 12 April 2010
 * 3rd revert: 15:14, 12 April 2010
 * 4th revert: 18:43, 12 April 2010
 * 5th revert: 19:03, 12 April 2010
 * 6th revert: 19:11, 12 April 2010
 * At the article Magyarization he made exactly the same amount of reverts as me, so I don't understand why he brought it up here.
 * Regarding the accusation of WP:Wikihounding: I already edited that article years ago, well before Umumu showed up on Wikipedia. I can easily defend myself against the content related accusations too, when necessary, but this is an edit warring noticeboard.
 * Squash Racket (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * About this article: Magyarization The order was this: I made a constructive edit (added referenced info), you deleted the added info, I readded them, you redeleted them, I readded them, you redeleted them, I readded them.


 * The finished sockuppet investigation proved clearly that your allegation is unfounded. User:iaaasi is a sockpuppet of User:Bonaparte. It seems you falsely accuse me of being the sockpuppet of a sockpuppet.
 * At least two OTHER editors think he is in fact User:Iaaasi - it is a big difference between belief and proven fact.(Umumu (talk) 12:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC))


 * You are listing here random edits of mine that have no connection. They don't form a do-undo edit war. You and User:Baxter9 are the ones who revert my edits, not me is the one who vandalizes the article.
 * 1st revert: 07:33, 15 April 2010
 * 4th revert: 17:55, 12 April 2010 It seems I have a edit war with myself (Umumu (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC))
 * I deleted the text from Magyar Katolik encyclopedia after Squash Racket deleted text from Catholic Encyclopedia (and it was the same reasoning) and he accepted my edit in the first phase. (Umumu (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC))
 * 4th revert: 18:43, 12 April 2010
 * 5th revert: 19:03, 12 April 2010
 * 6th revert: 19:11, 12 April 2010 These were not reverts, but re-adds after User:baxter9's vandalism. If it is necessary I will prove that I only corrected vandalism (Umumu (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC))
 * 2nd revert: 13:14, 12 April 2010
 * 3rd revert: 15:14, 12 April 2010 User:Iadrian yu told clearly below that these were not part of an edit war (Umumu (talk) 13:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC))


 * I added your very first edit in the series of reverts, so now you can't mislead admins into believing you revert warred with yourself. Sometimes you add a link first and only in your second-third edit start the reverting.
 * On the 12 April even if we don't count your removal of the encyclopedia as a revert, you still many times broke WP:3RR.
 * Obviously lying about another editor's vandalism won't help here. Admins can check the diffs.
 * Regarding your identity: you listed yourself as a Serbian and then started citing numerous Romanian sources and using the Romanian Google Books. And now apparently you feel as a Hungarian. The amount of deceit is a bit too much for me.
 * User:Iaaasi added as a "Hungarian saying" on his userpage: Slovak is not a man.
 * User:Umumu added into the article Magyarization (just yesterday): Slovak is not a man. What could be behind that strange coincidence? Squash Racket (talk) 12:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no contradiction. I am a Serbian Student in Romania and I have Hungarian roots. The saying I added was from a English source. The saying from User:iaaasi's profile is Strapachka is not a food, wheel-barrow is not a cart, a Slovak is not a man.. I is not my fault if it a widespread saying. On google there are 1260 results for this search (Umumu (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC))
 * (Earlier comment moved by author. Comment below refers to it.)
 * Refuting this nonsense would lead nowhere, I think administrators do have the brains to easily check those diffs themselves. Squash Racket (talk) 13:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

My edits regarding the John Hynadi article are in accordance with user Umumu. Umumu provides a valid explanation and everything is OK. My edits have no connection to the disputed edits we are talking about. I agree with Umumu`s accusation on this thread, Squash Racket is a highly disruptive member with a bad attitude toward people who don`t agree with him. Squash Racket also reverted my edits without any valid explanation. I don`t want to get involved so i just want to be clear that reverting my edits is not the problem here.iadrian (talk) 12:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Please read this thread to better understand the motives behind Iadrian yu's comment. Squash Racket (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * TO SUM IT UP Dear administrators, after the Slovak is not a man and the Slovak is not a man incident could we just simply say that User:Umumu, a Romanian who first pretended to be a Serbian and now pretends to be a Hungarian(!) AND clearly broke WP:3RR at least twice is simply banned editor User:Iaaasi's latest fake account and close this thread? Squash Racket (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A sockpuppet investigation showed that your allegation is unfounded.. I never pretended to be Romanian or Hungarian. I am Serbian. Ja sam Srbin. The saying I added was from a English source (copy-paste), The saying from User:iaaasi's profile is Strapachka is not a food, wheel-barrow is not a cart, a Slovak is not a man.. I is not my fault if it a widespread saying. On google there are 1260 results for this search
 * Regarding 3RR, It is clear that I am not guiltier than you(Umumu (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC))


 * I said that i won`t get involved but i just can`t believe this nationalistic comment from Squash Racket. He is obsessed with who is what nationality and with this user Iaaasi who is apparently Romanian... I think we have opened a Pandora`s box there. Does the value of the comment variate depending from which nationality is coming from...I hope not, and then what does it matter what nationality Umumu is... No comment. I hope that it is clear to everybody now what is going on here. iadrian (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * TO SUM IT UP Dear administrators, after the Slovak is not a man and the Slovak is not a man incident could we just simply say that User:Umumu, a Romanian editor who first pretended to be a Serbian and now pretends to be a Hungarian(!) AND clearly broke WP:3RR at least twice is simply banned editor User:Iaaasi's latest fake account and close this thread?
 * Besides, as Iadrian yu always shows up in the right moment to support him, he's also quite suspicious. Squash Racket (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * We could say the same about the support that User:Hobartimus and User:Baxter9 give to you on John Hunyadi article, but we don't. We are not uncivil like others (Umumu (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC))
 * Hobartimus showed up once... or twice? Baxter once? This would be our managed team work? User:Iaaasi/User:Umumu, we have more important problems now. I don't want to repeat the bottomline again (see TO SUM IT UP). So please, enough now. Squash Racket (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am looking at this thread form the time Umumu invited me. I am sorry, but i think you are exaggerate a little here.iadrian (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to say enough is enough. Creating new sockpuppets does not mean that the original ban is invalid. When proven all the edits of an editor that was banned during making the edits will be reverted. All edits will be reverted to all articles without review as banned editors have no right to make the edit in the first place. Better to keep this in mind. The fact that Rokarudi is a begginer user who couldn't file an investigation properly does not mean that banned users may edit freely. Hobartimus (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, but who is a new sockpuppet? And if you mean Umumu, there was already a process regarding that matter...As i recall it was proven that the accusation was false. Now please don`t rush to change everything back ,especially not the referenced content. If you have a valid accusation make it at the sockpuppet investiagion not here, and certainly not with the removal of the well referenced text of some article.iadrian (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me tell you that:
 * "These were not reverts, but re-adds after User:baxter9's vandalism. If it is necessary I will prove that I only corrected vandalism" That was not vandalism, and I only revrted you 2 times (the removal of referenced content), and after this I left your playground. As I told you, you are manipulating and censuring sources:
 * {|class=wikitable


 * "The reference you keep re-adding, is exactly the same which you removed as "dubiuos" Hungarian source. So if it supports your POV it can stay, but when not you are removing it?-- <b style="color:#151B8D; font-family:comic sans ms;">B@xter</b><sup style="color:red;">9 18:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Minutes ago you said that "The text was from a Hungarian (so possibly biased, like Romanian ones)", but when it support your POV it is not? :D Furthermore, as you said (and removed per this) the Romanian source is also biased, so please add a neutral source or I will remove it".-- <b style="color:#151B8D; font-family:comic sans ms;">B@xter</b><sup style="color:red;">9  19:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * }
 * That happens when the Romanian source says X is true, while the Hungarian source says X is not true. But when both of them tell the same thing and there is no contradiction it is obvious that we talk a about a valid information (Umumu (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC))
 * If a Hungarian source affirms you Romanian source it can stay, if not, you are deleting it because it is a Hungarian propaganda? Very neutral and objective...-- <b style="color:#151B8D; font-family:comic sans ms;">B@xter</b><sup style="color:red;">9 16:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For example Romanian sources talk about: "the indisputable Romanian origin of John Hunyadi", but I don't insert htat text(Umumu (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC))


 * The similarity between Umumu's new edit (Strapachka is not a food, wheel-barrow is not a cart, a Slovak is not a man.) and Iaaasi's old edit is certain (furthermore, the fact that Umumu's account was created and started to edit Romania related articles after Iaaasi was blocked; +compare their contribs), like this childish behaviour of replacing his userpage content after beeing accused. Compare this with this. I think the best would be to restor the article to a stable version and protect it from editing until the parties concerned reach consensus. +request a new checkuser on User:Umumu-- <b style="color:#151B8D; font-family:comic sans ms;">B@xter</b><sup style="color:red;">9 16:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I never added this text Strapachka is not a food, wheel-barrow is not a cart, a Slovak is not a man in a edit (Umumu (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC))

I see that the whole crew is here, i must work on my psychic powers to be more like you in that way, imidietly Squash Racket mentioned you, everybody showed up :) . I see that every member of this crew wants for the referenced text out. Why is that? Everybody is avoidnig that question. Since when a well-referenced text can`t be a part of the article? Because it is coming from Umumu? Please let`s everybody respect the valid contribution that it is at the question. I see that the whole crew has problems with various accusations but this is not the place for them. There is a section for this problem, make it there. The text has valid English references and i will not repeat myself anymore.iadrian (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am here since 15:26. And the "psychic power" is called watchlist, but if you want request a checkuser on me.-- <b style="color:#151B8D; font-family:comic sans ms;">B@xter</b><sup style="color:red;">9 16:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, i also had this page at my watch list, specially since this page is created today and i had no knowledge of it`s existence ;-) until Umumu informed me. Anyway, it doesn`t matter, as i see it, more users, better. iadrian (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - This seems to be a new episode in a longer-running struggle, also featuring Umumu and Squash Racket, which is summarized at User talk:Excirial. I am hoping that admins will find a response to this complaint that will push matters toward a more diplomatic outcome, across the entire set of topics which have caused conflicts between editors connected to the Hungarian or Romanian sides of this dispute. If time permits I'm considering imposing a discretionary sanction under WP:DIGWUREN. Since this would take time for me to do the analysis, any admin who has a quicker idea for closing this complaint should go ahead. Short of discretionary sanctions, an *article* 1RR on both John Hunyadi and Magyarization could be considered. Such an action is not up to a single admin but it could be confirmed at WP:AN. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Elonka has enough experience regarding regarding central-European issues (i.e..Hungarian, Romanian, Slovak, Serbian etc.)-- <b style="color:#151B8D; font-family:comic sans ms;">B@xter</b><sup style="color:red;">9 17:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, Elonka is great, if she knows and understands the European history (Romanian and Hungarian stuff) it would be great for her to be the mediator/administrator in this case.iadrian (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry for asking EdJohnston but i am wondering why is all this hustle created over a well-referenced text ? I though that every user can contribute to the article if it has valid references. My question is, why is this case special ?iadrian (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's not miss the basic point here as the discussion seems to deviate: after the Slovak is not a man (banned editor's talk page) and the Slovak is not a man (Umumu's yesterday edit) incident could we just simply say that User:Umumu, a Romanian editor who first pretended to be a Serbian and now pretends to be a Hungarian(!) AND clearly broke WP:3RR at least twice is simply banned editor User:Iaaasi's latest fake account and finally move on? Reverting a banned editor doesn't count as a revert. EVEN IF we count User:Iaaasi/User:Umumu as a valid editor (which we don't) I didn't violate WP:3RR like User:Umumu did at least twice (see links above). User:Iaaasi/User:Umumu counted another editor's revert as mine to mislead admins. Squash Racket (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And this of course, your 'strange' way of thinking : I said that i won`t get involved but i just can`t believe this nationalistic comment from Squash Racket. He is obsessed with who is what nationality and with this user Iaaasi who is apparently Romanian... I think we have opened a Pandora`s box there. Does the value of the comment variate depending from which nationality is coming from...I hope not, and then what does it matter what nationality Umumu is... No comment. I hope that it is clear to everybody now what is going on here. iadrian (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC). And  I see that every member of this crew wants for the referenced text out. Why is that? Everybody is avoidnig that question. Since when a well-referenced text can`t be a part of the article? Because it is coming from Umumu? Please let`s everybody respect the valid contribution that it is at the question. I see that the whole crew has problems with various accusations but this is not the place for them. There is a section for this problem, make it there. The text has valid English references and i will not repeat myself anymore.iadrian (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC) this. Don`t forget all the facts ;-).iadrian (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know how this mess relates to my comment, but if I feel that you just want to make it go away, I will repeat it. Squash Racket (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is important for the other users/administrators to see it and the comments speak for themself. iadrian (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if my memories are correct this whole "battle" started when user Iaaasi and later Umumu and you tried to remove the referenced alternate theories regarding John Hunyadi's ethnicity (first his Cuman, later Slavic, and now Hungarian theories). I agree with you, we are building an encyclopedia here, which should be based on reliable neutral sources. The ethnicity of the editor doesnt count. "Does the value of the comment variate depending from which nationality is coming from...I see that every member of this crew wants for the referenced text out. Why is that?" Sorry, but several references have been removed because "the author of this book is Hungarian/Romanian" so I dont understand this new aspect from you... To prevent cases like theese in the future a new checkuser should be requested on Umumu.-- <b style="color:#151B8D; font-family:comic sans ms;">B@xter</b><sup style="color:red;">9 17:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "I see that every member of this crew wants for the referenced text out" I dont know what kind of referenced text are you talking about, as I said: I only reverted your "edit" (removal of REFERENCED text) twice.-- <b style="color:#151B8D; font-family:comic sans ms;">B@xter</b><sup style="color:red;">9 18:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * These are only unfounded accusations(Umumu (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC))
 * Are they? It is enough to check the talkpage of the article: it is a nightmare! 80% of it is linked to the ethnicity of Hunyadi (some sources say Slavic, others Cumanic, some refer to the obscurity of his ethnic, About Hungarian feelings of Hunyadi, Romanian descent of John Hunyadi, John Hunyadi Romanian?, white knight of wallachia, Iancu de Hunedoara "probably" of Romanian origin, Hungarian origin, John Hunyadi and his Romanian descent, John Hunyadi's possible Hungarian, Slavic or Cuman descendance etc etc.). Many of them started by you. Oh, and 80% of recent changes is linked to its ethnicity. Just check the history.-- <b style="color:#151B8D; font-family:comic sans ms;">B@xter</b><sup style="color:red;">9 17:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The nationality of User:Umumu counts as long as he seems to lie about it. First he presented himself as a Serbian who speaks English too and the first thing he does is use the Romanian Google Books. Then after that was revealed he became a Serbian student in Romania. Then he deleted his userpage and now he has Hungarian roots. After that he uses the same obscure "Slovak is not a man" phrase in an article that User:Iaaasi used on his userpage. Squash Racket (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * He is a real cosmopolitan. :)-- <b style="color:#151B8D; font-family:comic sans ms;">B@xter</b><sup style="color:red;">9 18:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: User:Umumu/User:Iaaasi/User:Bonaparte case confirmed.


 * Result - User:Umumu has been blocked indef by Fred Bauder as a sock of Bonaparte. EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)