Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive130

User:Insider201283 (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1st revert: 00:10, 3 May 2010 reverts 2007 - 1997 order of two court cases among other reverts.
 * 2nd revert: 10:58, 3 May 2010 removes all controversies (reverts prior edit)
 * 3rd revert: 11:44, 3 May 2010 removes all controvercies from the lede (partial revert of prior edit, with extra added "RV STOP EDIT WARRING" edit comment)
 * 4th revert: 11:54, 3 May 2010 labeled "revert"
 * 5th revert: 12:04, 3 May 2010 reverts prior edit - arguably non-controvercial
 * 6th revert: 13:17, 3 May 2010 reverts prior edit - arguably non-controvercial, but at this point, shouldn't he be explaining why?
 * 7th revert 13:53, 3 May 2010 same revert, but now he should clearly be explaining why.
 * 8th revert 16:37, 3 May 2010, reverts to.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: There are scores - most recent is

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Network_TwentyOne, amongst others. Note statement that all other editors are acting in "bad faith."

Comments: Perhaps a long article ban would get this user to stop being a SPA whose sole editing now appears to be to prop up multiple MLM companies - has a history of this problematic behavior. Hipocrite (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note also that User:Financeguy222 need to be sanctioned as well. Perhaps ban all the SPAs from the article and let me fix it? Hipocrite (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite and another user User:FinanceGuy222 are repeatedly trying to include poorly sourced allegations against a company while simultaneously removing the well sourced statement the allegations were dismissed. This kind of editing should be instantly removed under WP:V. I have listed the dispute for mediation Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-05-02/Network_TwentyOne, these editors continue to make the edits, User:FinanceGuy222 does not even discuss in Talk. The reasons "why" have been explained to death in Talk and on user pages. The page should stay as it was before the current dispute arose while it's dealt with in mediation. In general, poorly sourced allegations should not remain at all, however leaving them in while removing the indisputable and sourced fact they were disputed is not acceptable behaviour. I'd note that despite Hipocrites claims of SPA, I edit a wide range of articles in the direct selling industry and occasionally contribute elsewhere. FinanceGuy222 has contributed to only this article. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "I'm right, you're wrong" is not an excuse for edit warring. Hipocrite (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Adhering to WP:V - Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page is however. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:V is not an exemption to WP:3rr, and the vast majority of your reverts did not remove any content, let alone remove unsourced content. Hipocrite (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:3RR is inconsistent with WP:V. In the event of inconsistencies, policy always win. I pointed out the inconsistency in 3RR in March on the 3RR talk but received no responses. I've now proposed some minor rewording to fix this. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your proposed changes to policy will not gain consensus, and even if they do gain consensus in the future they are not currently applicable. Hipocrite (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I pointed out the inconsistencies in the policy well before the current dispute. There's clearly an issue that needs to be addressed. I'm following WP:V, you're following WP:3RR. --Insider201283 (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Still reverting -. Hipocrite (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a completely different edit and section of the article. You removed sourced material claiming a couple (not all) of links were broken and bizarrely claimed it had nothing to do with the company when the company is explictly mentioned in the sources. I fixed the broken links and put the sourced, factual material back. If a link is broken you should note that and attempt to find a replacement, not delete swathes of text. --Insider201283 (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a revert because you removed the number 1,100. Hipocrite (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Was that meant to be a deliberate "gotcha" edit was it? How juvenile. In any case I did note that edit and it did not accurately reflect the source, as the number referred to South Africa, not SA and Ukraine as per your edit. Furthermore it's almost certainly an outdated number and it's inclusion adds nothing while potentially being inaccurate. But yes, I should have noted my reasoning for removing it in the edit fixing the broken source links. Mea Culpa --Insider201283 (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

<-SPA account User:FinanceGuy222 has AGAIN removed the fully sourced statement that these court allegations were dismissed. In the process he also reverted other links to broken versions. All done, AGAIN, without either discussion here or on the Talk pages. Can someone please stop this user? --Insider201283 (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * NOTE to ADMIN - I'm guessing you'll most likely lock the article for a period. I'd request you don't leave it in the status of having serious allegations against the topic of the article included, but with the fact the case was dismissed removed. This is it's current status and fixing this problem under WP:V is the excuse Hipocrite used to report me to 3RR. Thanks. --Insider201283 (talk) 00:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (I'm an involved admin, but...) See WP:WRONGVERSION.  Unless you wish to claim that the current version is a WP:BLP violation, you don't have a possible point.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * --  tariq abjotu  08:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

User:RomaC reported by User:Cptnono (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: [ - Reverting of an edit that was not vandalism although he asserted it was on the user's talk page. I half agree with this edit actually.
 * 2nd revert: - Again
 * 3rd revert: - Reverted my attempt to remove two figures that appear to be incorrect. His reasoning was that I also adjusted the wording of another part (my bad for not saying so in the edit summary, thought it was minor enough)
 * 4th revert: - Reverted something not covered in the above reverts. Still the infobox and still under 3rrs intent
 * 5th revert: - Revert of another editor who reverted him (again the figures thing)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * - Response to a message he left on my talk page regarding the first revert.
 * - Warning on the article's talk page about it (almost the same wording)

Comments:

Kind of sucks since RomaC and I worked together to get that bit of the infobox figured out. However, he should not be reverting another editor under the false assertion that he is a vandal when it is a content dispute. He knows how to use the talk page and used it instead of reverting or not working with any attempted edits. Overly rash that borders on incivility.

And to be fair, Jiujitsuguy seems to be at 3 so going over 3rr is close. His edit was what kicked it off. Shame the both of them didn't simmer down enough to chat instead of hitting revert over and over on this one since it should be easy enough to fix. Cptnono (talk) 04:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Follow up: RomaC responded on my talk page while I was creating this that he is taking off for a bit. If he is taking a self-imposed wikibreak (even if it is just a couple hours) then any action would probably be unneeded.Cptnono (talk) 04:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind that WP:3RR is a bright line rule. RomaC should self-revert or face the typical consequences. Breein1007 (talk) 05:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Cptnono asked me to comment here. RomaC may have ceased editing for the time being, or may not, it is too soon to tell. Regardless, before I saw this report, I gave RomaC an ARBPIA notification, since he had not previously had one. I'm not going to close this report but it had been my intention, prior to seeing it, to impose discretionary sanctions (not limited to RomaC) if the edit-warring continued following the notification. CIreland (talk) 04:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe a warning and a break are all that are needed to prevent continued disruption. He has received the warning and appears to be stepping back. If an enforced block is needed to drive the admonishment home then he did it to himself.Cptnono (talk) 05:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Edit war seems to have died down; I am inclined to leave it be. Stifle (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

User:209.244.42.199/User:209.244.42.199 reported by User:Jonny2x4 Result: No violation
Page:

User being reported: (anonymous user who also used the IP numbers, ),

Previous version reverted to: link


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Link

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

Comments:


 * I already reported this user a week ago and a decision was made to lock the page for four days, as can be seen here. Ever since the page was left unprotected, the first thing the user did was revert to his preferred version of the page (again, with no justification on the edit summary). I see no point of warning him again. Jonny2x4 (talk) 05:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

User:GageSkidmore and myself reported by User:WCityMike (Result: Resolved)
Page:

User being reported:

User being reported:

Added section to article lead regarding episode's framing device. Reverted by user.  Requested that he permit consensus on the decision to be worked out; requested Wikipedia:Third opinion. User kept reverting (initial and     ); to not whitewash it, I've been reverting it right back  and so equally am guilty. Request administrator intervention, which will allow tempers to cool and also give time for users to add consensus as requested on talk page and third opinion board. Also, respectfully, think user has a bit of a WP:OWN problem if one examines edit history. &#151; WCityMike 06:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is such a lovely discussion. Gage (talk) 06:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking back at the article, I'd like to retract my opposition. I have no further intensions of reverting the article until there is a consensus established. Gage (talk) 06:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Great! &#151; WCityMike 06:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)



User:AshtonBenson reported by User:Mattnad (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Other warnings (OR and RS) by other editors have been deleted from AshtonBenson's talk page,, , by the user.

See Talk:Apple_TV and Talk:Apple_TV

Comments:

There are more reversions by this using dating back into April including a few Anon IPs that were probably socks (see edit comments and then look at article talk page about meat-puppetry). While the edits may be technically just outside of the 24 hour rule for the latest 4 edits, the editors recent singular focus on this content would suggest he's warring. Mattnad (talk) 11:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Stifle (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Mattnad (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Tonz29 reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: No action [Closed by reporter per WP:NEWCOMER])
. : Time reported: 04:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


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

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


 * 1) 03:08,  5 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 360012767 by Bidgee (talk)")
 * 2) 03:10,  5 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Projects */")
 * 3) 03:46,  5 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 360208587 by Bidgee (talk)")
 * 4) 03:59,  5 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 360213881 by Bidgee (talk)")
 * 5) 04:02,  5 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 360214190 by Bidgee (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

This is possibly who also added unsourced content and reverted (using the undo) disruptively. Bidgee (talk) 04:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

—Bidgee (talk) 04:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

Not sure if this note will appear here, but yes it was the same user. I am trying to update information that is wrong. Being an inexperienced Wikipedia user I am totally confused about who exactly I am supposed to be interacting with about why edits are being changed or what I am doing wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonz29 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If you had of read the messages/warnings left on your talk page you would have seen some links to some policies but also you could have asked for help on your user talk page, which myself or other contributors would have helped. Bidgee (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I did read the links in the messages I was sent. It may seem obvious to you but to an inexperienced user it's quite confusing. I don't even know what the talk page is or how to "ask for help". I tried to work out how to email you and couldn't. The problem seems to be my lack of referencing (???) even though the information I was changing is unreferenced and wrong. Everytime I tried to get my changes back up and put in references the page would just be reverted. Again confusing when I'm trying to do the right thing. And then I get labeled as a disruptive user. Eh??? Really really disappointing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonz29 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * When you need/request for help use Helpme. With sourcing it is best to use a template within the tags but also primary sources (IE: AusAID) should be used as last resort if secondary sources can't be found. Bidgee (talk) 05:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. I'll do that. Using secondary sources is a bit tricky though because the page is about AusAID itself so a fair bit of info will come straight from the source (organisational structure/location/projects etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonz29 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Savant1984 and User:Zargulon (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported: and

User:Zargulon on April 22 introduced a novel way of spelling Hebrew into the Posek article. He is supported by User:Savant1984. I reverted his novelty on several grounds, as explained at length on the talk page. WP:BRD clearly indicates that in such a case, the editors introducing the novelty should first establish consensus for their edit. This Zargulon and Savant1984 have not done, but they do continue to undo my reverts of their edits, in which they time and again restore their novelty or variations thereof. On April 24 I asked for outside input on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism. This post was acknowledged by Savant1984, and various editors have since stated their opinions on the talk page of Posek. That discussion on the talk page has clearly shown that 1. the change in spelling made by Zargulon and Savant1984 has no consensus. 2. that there is no other change in spelling that has consensus. 3. that the issue of the best spelling in English of the Hebrew words is a general one, and should not be discussed on the talk page of any single article (an argument which Savant 1984 specifically agreed to himself in this edit).

This article was protected on April 25 by User:NuclearWarfare, who at that time considered it a content dispute. In view of the fact that said two editors insist on repeating their edit, which from the beginning was a novelty and against which strong arguments have been brought forth and which enjoins no consensus, I ask to 1. regard this as a behavioral issue, and 2. to warn Savant1984 and Zargulon that they should not continue to edit war, and 3. that if they still think that they are right, despite all the arguments and opinions to the contrary, that they should seek broad consensus before making any more similar edits. Debresser (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: I have notified Savant1984 and Zargulon  of this post. Zargulon has removed my post, and continues to undo my revert with no edit summary even after that. . In order not to violate the 3RR rule, I will leave it up to any uninvolved admin to undo his last edit to Posek and restore the previous version which is in accordance with the way this article was until April 22 and the consensus on the talk page. Debresser (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like a content dispute to me, with several parties making some attempts to discuss (albeit while, sadly, reverting the article as well). I am generally not permitted to revert and block or revert and protect. However, now that the page is protected, if it becomes abundantly obvious that Savant or whoever you claim is being belligerent no longer wants to chat on the talk page because the article is protected at his or her version, do feel free to send a message to me on my talk page or make a request for unprotection at WP:RPP. --  tariq abjotu  16:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree with you. This is not a content dispute, as I have shown above. In addition, referring to the serious version of WP:Wrong version, I'd like to repeat my request to undo the last edit by Zargulon. Debresser (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I saw what you wrote the first time. My original comment stands. --  tariq abjotu  17:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In that case I can only hope some other admin will disagree with you and (after consulting with you) will agree to what I requested in the first place. Debresser (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, for the record, I wish to note that even the most cursory examination of the talk page and edit history will reveal that I have consistently avoided edit warring in favour of discussion. My last edit was an attempt to establish (I think quite reasonably) appears to me to have been the consensus at the time in place of the unilateral reversion to the original spelling by Debresser. I respectfully take exception to Debresser's claim that this is a matter for behavioural reprimand and appreciate tariq abjotu 's discretion on this point. Savant1984 (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record I will agree that both Savant1984 and Zargulon have partaken in the discussion, but at the same time insist on being right, in disregard of proof and arguments from Wikipedia guidelines and factual findings to the contrary, including a lack of consensus for their opinion. I agree that Zargulon has been the less pleasant in the talk page discussion, and he has also done three reverts today (without edit summary). I hope Tariqabjotu or others will see reason and 1. unprotect the page and undo Zargulon's last edit 2. implement the other recommendations as to how these editors should go about gaining consensus before making further edits like this. Debresser (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Savant1984 has agreed to undo the edit and seek consensus in a broader and more appropriate forum. Zargulon has not replied, but posted the following slanderous post on Savant1984's talkpage, from which it is evident that he seeks no discussion or compromise, and is in effect a disruptive editor. I therefore strongly request to reprimand Zargulon for his edit warring and slandering, and request his edit be undone and the article unprotected. Debresser (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

User:PoeticJustice 4all reported by User:Wehwalt (Result: stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Sorry, our efforts have been all over the user's talk page but he won't listen.

Comments: At least six reverts to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

, no reverts in the past day. Any further edit warring will be looked upon very dimly, however. Tim Song (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

User:AlistairMcMillan, User:Mattnad and User:HelloAnnyong reported by User:AshtonBenson (Result:protected)
Page:

User being reported: User:AlistairMcMillan and his meatpuppets User:Mattnad and User:HelloAnnyong

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

See Talk:Apple_TV and Talk:Apple_TV where User:AlistairMcMillan has directly violated WP:MEAT, writing "Can someone please remove that badly source content he keeps adding? And also back me up here that we need content to be backed up by reliable sources and we don't accept anonymous discussion forums as reliable sources?" This request constitutes a "recruitment of editors as proxies to sway consensus" and is in violation of WP:SOCK.

Comments:

There are more reversions by this user and his meat puppets (User:Mattnad and User:HelloAnnyong) dating back into April including a few Anon IPs that were probably socks (see edit comments and then look at article talk page about meat-puppetry). While the edits may be technically just outside of the 24 hour rule for the latest 4 edits, the editors' recent singular focus on this content would suggest they're warring. AshtonBenson (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

See previous Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring for context. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Uh.. wow. I'm a longstanding contributor to the third opinion project, and that's how I got involved here. Alistair made the request for a 3O here, and I accepted it here. I think this is the first time I've ever been accused of meatpuppetry for giving a 3O, but prior to my involvement I had never been involved on that page. I had never even spoken to AshtonBenson or Alistair prior to my involvement as a 3O. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this speaks for itself as a tit-for-tat reaction to this Edit Warring post above. Of course there's is no collusion (that I'm aware of) between the three editors who disagree with User:AshtonBenson except that we've all read the WP:RS guidelines and have separately tried to work with this editor.  I'm not hopeful reason will work here to resolve this editorial dispute.Mattnad (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No, you're probably correct; nevertheless the article has been Protected by User:Stifle to allow discussion which is what I was about to do myself. I've also redacted the "meatpuppets" part of the header of this article. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for protecting the article, but you protected the wrong version (or, perhaps, arranged the timing of your protection action to occur immediately after one of the deletions). As a result, this discussion is in an awkward state.  Please undo the controversial deletions until this has been resolved.  Thank you.  AshtonBenson (talk) 07:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

User:HP1740-B reported by User:Fram (Result: 30 hours)
Page: Dutch people

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (user was in previous disputes made aware of the 3RR rule, and has been blocked in 2008 for 3RR on the same page)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: and all following edits there

Comments:

We both started with a series of consecutive edits (restorations of old material by HP1740B, removal of some of these by me), and then moved on to single edits. For the sake of clarity and fairness, I have considered a serie sof consecutive revert edits as one revert. HP-1740B is an editor who mainly focuses on the article Dutch people, and has gotten into conflicts there before. He often leaves for weeks or (in this case) months, abruptly resuming editing while ignoring everything that happened inbetween or any discussions from the past. His first listed revert is such a revert to his version of six months before. The next four are more obvious reverts. Fram (talk) 09:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It is a matter of principle for myself and Wikipedia policy. Fram, an admin who I consider thoroughly biased to me, removed sourced sections (which stood for 6 months, not six months ago) of the article without discussing them on talk.


 * If the information was unreferenced, he or she would be right; but it wasn't. Just because I took some time off of editing doesn't mean you can just go ahead removeing whole referenced sections without any rationale. It just doesn't work that way.


 * I thought the discussion had finally started on talk; well I know it has, and I consider it typical of Frams attitude towards me that rather than discussing on talk he/she chooses to try and get me out of the running here instead.


 * I fully acknowledge that I have broken the 3RR; but be very mindfull of the fact that it has nothing to do with edit warring; it has to do with admins thinking they're God and that the rules that apply to all Wikipedians (providing rational explanations on talk when performing such actions) are somehow not applicable to them.HP1740-B (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have not acted as an admin or used my admin tools in this dispute. I am acting here as an editor like everyone else. Please note that the last revert is not reverting me but reverting another user, and that my removal of the sourced but irrelevant section was done three months ago, and that that was only one of the things reverted repeatedly. Fram (talk) 09:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And there we have it! YOU thought it was irrelevant, and that's all the justification YOU needed. That section is sourced and was there for over six months. You are supposed to discuss such changes on talk. You as much as anyone else.HP1740-B (talk) 09:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Our justifications are the same: I thought it was irrelevant, you thought it was relevant. You don't need to shout (as has been said to you before), and this is not relevant for the 3RR anyway. You did four reverts, against different people, in less than a day, despite being aware of this rule. Other issues shouldbe brought up elsewhere. Fram (talk) 10:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Last time; no matter what your justification was, you should have placed in on the talk page instead of removing a whole referenced section with no rationale whatsoever. Which is what you did. Furthermore, I think I have a right to explain my actions. That I'm not some troll or pusher of unsuporter biased information; but someone who wants the rules to go for everyone. Someone who doesn't take kindly to the behavior you've displayed. HP1740-B (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * HP1740-B is the only person who has been repeatedly highlighting Frams admin status on the talk. Fram has never during the disputes made any claim based on being an admin nor has he threatened to use any admin power. In this dispute Fram has behaved as any editor, so the whole admin thing is a distractor in my view. Arnoutf (talk) 09:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I never made any accusations here on Fram abusing his admin tools, that is something you just made up. I mention him being an admin, because admins are supposed to respect Wikipedia policy and behave accordingly. If they do not, this should be mentioned as they're supposed to follow Wikipedia policy.HP1740-B (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Every editor is supposed to do that. New editors may be excused for not knowing the rules, but you and I are both experienced enough. You have above justified your actions with "it has to do with admins thinking they're God and that the rules that apply to all Wikipedians are somehow not applicable to them", which is a personal attack (nothing new there), and a completely irrelevant reference to me being an admin (which you did tiwce in the past days on Talk:Dutch people as well, so it's not a one-off expression). And you have in the past (october 2009) stated on Talk:Dutch people about me that "You are an administrator with a clear agenda; in fact your partiality towards me is no secret. In my opinion, an administrator who is involved to such a degree in a certain article should either refrain from editing it or refrain from using his or her administrator-status to pressure other contributors." Fram (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not put words in my mouth. I have justified my actions by the fact that you removed sourced information that stood for 6 months without any rationale on the articles talk page.


 * You can try to cloud that fact by trying to undermine my credibility by either your interpretations of my remarks and your actions (do you want me to mention your affair with User:Jack Merridew? which nearly costed you your admin position?) but that (stood for 6 months, sourced, no rationale on talk) is the reason I reverted you, and stopped reverting you as soon as you started to discuss the matter on the talk page.HP1740-B (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "and stopped reverting you as soon as you started to discuss the matter on the talk page." I commented on the talk page on these edits on 4 May at 7:28, and haven't stopped replying since. You reverted four times after that, and you didn't stop reverting at all, the last revert is yours. Fram (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because you posted a message on talk, doesn't mean you were discussing anything. Nor did it stop you from reverting. Discussing is listining to each other; not just stating your opinion and going back to reverting to your prefered version. Which is something you only stopped doing today. Why should I even be explaining this to you?! HP1740-B (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Can we please limit this to the accusation brought against HP1740-B per WP:NOTTHEM. Thanks Arnoutf (talk) 12:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I presented the situation at hand: the undiscussed removal of referenced sections which were in the article for 6 months. It is Fram who started (however childish that sounds) bringing in other, complety unrelated matters and accusations. He ows my rebuttal to himself.HP1740-B (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * While a protection would have normally been a wise alternative so that discussion on the article could proceed, it's quite clear that HP1740-B's tone toward this content dispute is noticeably less productive and collaborative than that exhibited the others involved in this dispute. The nature of his edit-warring is simply too hard to ignore. --  tariq abjotu  14:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Iadrian_yu reported by User:Rokarudi (Result: no vio)
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:

Comment: Iadrian yu started to delete Hungarian names from the template that was created by me. After warning him, he made a redundant template and started to replace the original bilingual template to the monolingual template created by him on the individual pages for the tributaries of the river.  Formerly, there was an in-depth discussion on the language usage in templtaes at Bilingual template without prejudice. The editor provokes edit warring at John Hunyadi article as well.

I deleted the Hungarian names template in accordance with wiki rules, WP:NAME, official names section. The template is bilingual despite all wiki rules having in mind the Romanian law that the official language is Romanian ONLY and that Romania is not bilingual country. I replaced that template with the one in accordance with wiki rules. The result of that discussion was There is no prejudice against implementing either or both of these alternatives. I can`t see any similar example anywhere else or in Hungary so in Romania also we should use the official names, Romanian names. About John Hunyadi, there is another Hungarian user the problem, more precise WP:OWN and WP:GAME but that is not the subject of this discussion.iadrian (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I count two reverts. Tim Song (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: later blocked for 3RR on John Hunyadi - see report below. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Kittins floating in the sky yay reported by - Barek (talk • contribs) - (Result: )
. : Time reported: 19:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 16:55,  5 May 2010  (edit summary: "â†Redirected page to Nationalism")
 * 2) 17:31,  5 May 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 360326748 by Fishshaw (talk)")
 * 3) 17:41,  5 May 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 360329890 by Fishshaw (talk)")
 * 4) 17:59,  5 May 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 360332657 by Fishshaw (talk)")
 * 5) 18:41,  5 May 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 360338025 by Fishshaw (talk)")
 * 6) 19:37,  5 May 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 360346522 by Fishshaw (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: 19:11, 5 May 2010

—- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See also user's reply to 3RR warning on their talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The only reason I haven't also reported user:Fishshaw for the other side of the edit war is that Fishshaw hasn't continued following the warning to their user talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See also WP:ANI. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Rokarudi reported by User:iadrian_yu (Result: Reporter blocked for a week)

 * Article where dispute occurred:
 * Article where dispute occurred:
 * Article where dispute occurred:

User continously wants to provoke an edit war like here calling for other users to "help".


 * 1 edit
 * 2 edit
 * 3 edit
 * 4 edit

Thank you.iadrian (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * User:iadrian_yu blocked for 1 week. Reporting other editors is probably a bad idea when you're up to something like 7 reverts today yourself, and have a previous 55hr block for 3RR on the same article only a month ago. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I talked with User:iadrian_yu, and (s)he now understands what (s)he was doing wrong ((s)he didn't before). So the chances of a repeat are somewhat reduced. I told them how to apply WP:1RR, which I hope (s)he'll adhere to from now on.
 * Blocks are intended to be preventive, not punitive. Can we reduce the block, and test to see if the lesson has been learned? If it hasn't, we can always reblock later. --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd support lifting the block if User:Iadrian yu would formally accept a 1RR/day restriction for their future edits. Such a restriction would be enforceable by blocks. Nationalist edit wars tend to be very fierce, and I personally favor literal-minded application of the rules in those areas. Iadrian yu's previous record includes abuse of multiple accounts (see his block log, the entry for 18 March 2010). EdJohnston (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I support what Ed suggests. AGK   00:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Block log states that the report of multiple accounts was a mistake, and he was promptly unblocked. --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, say we make that 2RR, and for 1 month, and then review? --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Modification: I would support a 2RR-per-day restriction, similar to what Ed suggests. (On reflection, I'd rather we go a little above 1RR, but I agree that some limitation needs to be set if Adrian is to be unblocked.) What Kim suggests also seems like a good idea. Somebody should consult with Adrian as to whether he'd be willing to agree to these terms. AGK   01:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

(Copied from talk page:


 * Yes, i am Ok with it. iadrian (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

)

User:DIREKTOR reported by User:FkpCascais (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: [User talk:DIREKTOR]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:I just want to say that User:DIREKTOR has yesterday also been engaged in reverting precisely User:Theirrulez at my talk page also breaking the WP:3-RR by wrongly acusing him of being a sock (my report at wikiquette |here). Today, he has been revrting another user on the talk page of the user he was the day before reverting on my talk page. Despite the possibility of, in the second case, the reverted user being a sock, isn´t User:DIREKTOR obligated to wait to a sock to be confirmed before reverting it everywhere, specially on other users talk pages, or even worste, when clearly indicated by the users not to? (I had prohibited User:DIREKTOR to intervene at my talk page for some time now, and he disrespected that on several ocasions, and today, the User:Theirrulez has also expressed that didn´t wanted him removing coments from his talk page). FkpCascais (talk) 05:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should get a new hobby. You've reported DIREKTOR in three different places now, this being the third since the others didn't get the result you wanted. Your constant noticeboard postings are becoming disruptive, and it's time to pursue other steps in the dispute resolution process at this point. AniMate  05:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn´t reported him on this incident. It´s not my fault he makes many incidents in daily basis... I already said, I´ll report all incidents, and you can find my reporting disruptive only if you support disruption on WP. Isn´t you that also discredited my reports on him (or co.) on two other ocasions? Y E  S! Is that coincidence? Or, should I say, like you just did on User talk:DIREKTOR about this, a "triple crown" for you, too!!! FkpCascais (talk) 07:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ha! lol... this is just getting silly. I've been reverting an obvious sock of User:Ragusino (as I understand, 3RR does not apply to reverting socks). The sock's been trying to WP:OUT me in edit summaries, so I really do not think its some innocent new guy who thinks he knows my name. :)


 * The behavior of User:FkpCascais, however, is outright WP:HARASS. During the past few days, he's reported me four times under completely nonsense accusations that were rejected outright or just ignored.   He's been WP:STALKING me around, edit-warring & reverting my edits for personal reasons on five or six separate articles, as well as trying to WP:CANVASS other users against me into his little WP:CLIQUE. All this because I dared to oppose his edits. Am I supposed to just take this abuse? :( --  DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 10:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not want to comment on this issue, because I don't fully know it, but User:FkpCascais is now reporting a different incident of 3-rr violation. This time User:DIREKTOR allegedly violated it on User:Theirrulez's talk page. That said, I think User:DIREKTOR tends to be overzealous in his accusation of users being WP:SOCKS and, thereby, reverting their edits. He acts in good faith, I'm sure — and I've already told him so —. But perhaps he should take it a little more easy... Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 17:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * IT's literally impossible for one person to edit war, why is only one user being reported? What about the new user whose only edits have been to edit war on this talk page? I already know why, because FkpCascais is obsessed with trying to get DIREKTOR blocked. I renew my plea to you all to take this dispute up the chain to ArbCom or simply ignore on another no matter where the postings occur, the admin corps is tired of these constant reports. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The other editor reverting User:DIREKTOR's edit was User:Kancetha, the user being reverted in the first place. The diffs are the following:, , and . In this case, aside from the report, User:FkpCascais was innocent. That said, perhaps it might time to take this entire issue to WP:ANI to get an interaction ban...  Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 19:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The situation is too complex for WP:AN/I. I think the only option is arbitration or some other step in WP:DR. AniMate  19:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I just wander why the simple cases I reported are "too complex"? I was blocked for 24 hours for reporting a meatpuppet of him without any assumption of WP:AGF, (here, see, brutal, ah?) but when I report him, "everyone is so tired" and you are trying to make me look like I am "obscessively" trying to block him? Did I ever ask for block? It´s just too obvious how some of you are just trying to discredit my reports defending a user that is constantly on daily basis breaking rules on WP, is constantly trolling everybody disagrees with, in most uncivil manner as possible, even making blatant counter reports with total false acusations... ah! and already banned only 6 times... Do you User:Beeblebrox and User:AniMate really want to cope with such behavior? I will continue reporting any wrongdoing I see, whatever oposition I find, and "real" wikipedians should be just greatfull. I´ll just remind you that attacking me for reporting, and defending disruptive behavior, is disruption itself. FkpCascais (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC) And regarding other solutions, as WP:DR, well, they apply to "disputes" and here, there are no disputes, but rather one user constantly breaking WP rules, and some people constantly ignoring and discrediting my reports... FkpCascais (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's too complex because there clearly is a sockpuppet involved here. It's too complex because for the history behind this one needs to look through all of the reports you've filed. It's too complex because the only person blocked for one of your reports is... you. Why not do us all a favor and pursue one of the other steps in WP:Dispute resolution? AniMate  21:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Us"? FkpCascais (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "meatpuppet"; "constantly trolling"??? Dearie me. If, as you promise above, your strategy remains to "continue reporting any wrongdoing I see, whatever oposition I find", you may perhaps find that these somewhat intemperate remarks come back to haunt you. Ah well. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No answer to "Us".... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.231.206.100 (talk) 00:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * . If Theirrulez has an issue with people's behaviour on talk page, I trust  will complain about it in an appropriate venue. Stifle (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Zinbarg reported by User:Jayjg (Result:72h )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Previous version reverted to:


 * POV tag
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:
 * 10th revert:
 * 11th revert:
 * 12th revert:
 * 13th revert:


 * WHO/Aids - AMA 1999
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warnings: [

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Circumcision

Comments:


 * User:Zinbarg has essentially edited just 3 articles in his Wikipedia history, Circumcision, Sexual effects of circumcision, and Diabetes mellitus - almost 80% of his edits have been circumcision related, with almost 70% to the Circumcision article itself. His Talk: page comments show an even higher percentage of edits to Circumcision as an article and a topic. Since December he has insisted that the lead of the Circumcision article cannot contain a sentence on HIV/Aids, nor list the date of an AMA report. He returns to Wikipedia on an irregular basis, and immediately deletes the material he objects to from the lede, or adds a POV tag; as he stated in one edit summary, "No HIV in it's own paragraph in the lead, or we need the POV tag." He is essentially holding the article hostage; either he gets his way, or he defaces the article. Lengthy discussion on Talk: has proved fruitless; despite his claims being (in my view) thoroughly refuted, he remains adamant. He now no longer even bothers to respond to the relevant Talk: page discussion, but merely pops in once a week to revert, alluding to the Talk: page, as if the discussion had somehow been settled in favor of his doing this. His edits have been reverted by seven different editors in the past 6 weeks (e.g. Atomaton, Jakew, Spaully, Avraham, Jayjg, Coppertwig, JoshuaZ). He seems intent on doing this indefinitely. Jayjg (talk) 02:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Since this report Zinbarg has reverted again: Jayjg (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I have given Zinbarg a 72h block for a long sterile edit warring Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Haldraper reported by User:Joo (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

Haldraper kept deleting relevant materials from the Criticisms of Media Coverage section of the Catholic sex abuse cases article: a. despite objections from other editors (including yours truly) b. despite attempts by other editors to discuss reasons c. later proceeding with deletion again and again after stating reasons in a cryptic manner but without waiting for others to respond.

Here are some of the diffs: joo (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

1. Removed i) Christian Science Monitor survey results, ii) comment by Newsweek on no significant difference, iii) Shakeshaft's criticism of media over-focus on the Catholic Church and her statistics See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=356979570&oldid=356961967

2. Removed quote by Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children + info on insurance companies premiums not different for all denominations + Shakeshaft's statistics See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=357240469&oldid=357237190

3. Removed Shakeshaft's statistics which were reported in Weigel's criticism of media coverage http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=357378714&oldid=357369452

4. Removed Shakeshaft's statistics from Weigel's quote again See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=357586234&oldid=357584584

5. Removed Context section (Applewhite's quote). Moved Applewhite's quote to the Inaccuracies section and removed Jenkins' quote from the Inaccuracies section. See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=360036257&oldid=360018666

6. He placed an OR tag in the Context section which says: "This section may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references...". After I have spent lots of time searching and adding the relevant references, he has just removed ALL the additional references for the Context section (again without discussion) writing in the Edit Summary: "no need for sources to support a direct quote: the quote is the source itself, adding more is just overcitation". joo (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=360243257&oldid=360171493

7. He reverted (removed all the further references that I added), claiming "RV to non-OR/SYN version". Yet why did he put the OR-section tag there in the first place before the further references were given? And why does he still leave the OR-section there?

See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=360285649&oldid=360254763

8. John Nagel reverted Haldraper's deletions. Haldraper removed Applewhite's quote and the Context section (again and again) and put it (without the references) in the Inaccuracies section (yet he wrote on the talk page earlier that Applewhite was not talking about inaccuracies) and removed Jenkins' quote from the Inaccuracies section again.

See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=360478889&oldid=360478667

9. Haldraper removed "Context" subheading and the second part of Applewhite's quote where she stressed that "we must consider the historical context of any given episode".

See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=360524736&oldid=360515309

Points 1-4 have been resolved through the intervention of several other editors. Points 5-9 remain unresolved.

See discussions at 1. here

2. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Catholic_sex_abuse_cases#Stop_your_deletions.2C_Haldraper._Please_discuss_your_reasons. here] 3. here <-- latest joo (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - I am a Page Patroller with this article under my Watchlist. The article, Catholic sex abuse cases, was page protected on April 27, 2010 upon my request because the content was being edit-warred with WP:RECENTISM type material. While this action has lessened the edit-war, several editors continue to revert one another and violate WP:NPA with uncivil remarks. On May 5, 2010 I placed the POV tag on the article because the content has become DISPUTED and edit reverts were approaching a 3RR situtation. As a neutral editor, I discussed all my concerns on the affected talkpage to include conversations on 3RR, civility and NPA. This morning I delivered two substitute 3RR advisory standarized warnings to the following editors in these diffs:


 * Haldraper - DIFF
 * Joo - DIFF

Please note: I have this page under my Watchlist and noted this post. As per my post on one of the editor's talkpage, I was not ready to take action to this noticeboard but as per the affected talkpage, advised others to come here and file a report vis-a-vis ranting on the article talkpage. I felt I had to comment now because it is apparent to me that neither editor considers themselves properly aware of what 3RR means especially when edits/reverts take place to an article that has disputed content. --Morenooso (talk) 11:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

 * While I agree that edit warring itself is a problem, it's also important to consider whether the editor has good reasons for the reverts. Haldraper has been changing his reasons all the time. E.g. First he moved Applewhite's quote into the Inaccuracies section. Then he wrote that her quote is not about inaccuracy. Then he put an OR tag above Applewhite's quote. And that tag asked for references. When I've sourced enough references to support Applewhite's quote, he removed all the references writing in the Edit Summary that a quote does not need references. Then he moved Applewhite's quote into the Inaccuracies section and deleted Jenkins' quote about only one pedophile among thousand plus priests there. Surely, this kind of behavior deserves some censure/action? joo (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems to me much of the problem stems from Joo's lack of grasp of how Wikipedia works: to cite a minor example, he asked me indignantly on the talk page how I could see his contributions history when he couldn't see mine when of course every editor's is visible by clicking on 'contribs' in the revision history.


 * That's really irrelevant and I wasn't indignant, just puzzled. I am indignant though with your repeated deletions and repeated shuffling of Applewhite's quote in the Criticisms section (as outlined above) and yet refusing to discuss most of the time. joo (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * More seriously, I have yet to see any evidence that he understands WP:OR and especially WP:SYN (indeed he questioned why I was referring to 'encyclopaedia policies' on a talk page, suggesting he sees it as a forum for general discussion outside Wikipedia rules), hence his rather strange decision to pepper a direct quote with refs allegedly supporting the points the person being interviewed was making. Haldraper (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * See the context of his use of WP:OR on what I wrote on the talk page here and read what other editors have written about Haldraper's edits so far -- Cyrus at here and Huey45 at here and Farsight at here (scroll down). joo (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Up till now, Haldraper, you still have not explained why you've moved Applewhite into the Inaccuracies section when you've written that her quote is not about inaccuracy here. And why did you remove Jenkins' criticism that the media's usage of the term "pedophile" is inaccurate? joo (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No comment on the allegations at the time -- I didn't even read them. The request is stale at this point. --  tariq abjotu  13:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Jetblack500 reported by User:Michig (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

 Comments:

There are conflicting sources regarding the subjects birth date. This has been discussed on the talk page, with a consensus that we shouldn't state one birthdate as fact without mentioning the other possible dates. User:Jetblack500 appears unwilling to accept this consensus and has persistently removed a note after the birthdate pointing the reader to a section that discusses the different possible birth dates. It may be worth noting that Jetblack500 has also made totally unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry against pretty much anyone who disagrees with him on the topic, , as well as totally spurious accusations against me of vandalising his citations and removing his comments from Talk:Alan Vega. I've asked him several times to stop, to no avail, and it's now time for him to be forced to take a break. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Furthermore Jetblack500 forbids us from discussing on his/her talk page. Wwwhatsup (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * --  tariq abjotu  14:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

User:LinuxDude reported by User:Parsecboy (Result: 16 hours)
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: No need, the user is quite aware of the rule, his own edit summaries make that clear.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:Royal_Canadian_Navy Comments:

The user has been reverted by 3 editors not including myself; he throws the threat of 3RR in the face of other editors while shamelessly breaching the policy himself, while discussions on the talk page continue. LinuxDude's been around since 2006, he certainly knows better than to behave like this. I'd have blocked him myself, but since I'm involved, thought it better to bring the issue here. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not quite a fair categorization of what happened in the Royal Canadian Navy article by Parsecboy. An unfounded assertion was made in the article which was not factually correct.  That assertion was the MARITIME COMMAND (which is a component of) the Canadian Forces represents the Royal Canadian Navy today.  I initially removed that statement as factually incorrect (and without substantiation).  I was reverted a number of times.  I was the first one to point out the 3RR, in the hopes that rather than simply undoing my edits someone would either post Canadian Forces policy, Canadian Government policy to support the assertion.


 * I then allowed the offending statement to stand but edited it reflect the fact that this sentiment is by convention only. If it is by more than convention some will post the Canadian Forces or Government policy which establishes a Navy in Canada.  Many serving members in Canada's Maritime Command 'feel' they are in Canada's Navy, but the National Defence Act which is on line here establishes Canada's military under the banner "Canadian Forces".  The Navy which was established by Canada's "Naval Services Act" was dissolved by the passing of the National Defence Act which is why there is no Canada's Navy, or Royal Canadian Navy today.


 * These assertions can all be verified by simply examining the National Defence Act, and confirming it makes no provision for a navy. Under the National Defence Act, the Queens regulations and Orders and the Administrative Orders of the Canadian Forces also acknowledges no Navy, but does acknowledge a MARITIME Command.  On the other hand those claiming I'm am engaged in 3RR violations, and who are undoing my contribution can simply prove me wrong by citing something more than a website (which is neither Canadian government or CF policy).  I pointed out also, that Canada's Governor General recently claimed incorrectly on her government website that she was Canada's Head of State - and she was corrected by Canada's Prime Mininster.  This further shows that a website does not prove government policy.)


 * Nonetheless, there are serving members who speak as though their is a navy though no one can cite either Canadian laws or CF policy that shows this to be true. In editing the Royal Canadian Navy article, the convention that people call Canada's Maritime Force informally a Navy should be noted, as it is noteworthy, however the article should not cite as fact something that is not factually correct, and this is what drives both the 3RR complaint and the revisions of my edits.


 * Wikipedia's policy clearly favours factual correctness (to the detriment of sentiment). LinuxDude (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * tl;dr. However you want to characterize the dispute, you broke the rules of which you are clearly aware. If you want to behave like you have been, you have to suffer the consequences. You simply don't edit war, no matter how right you are. Parsecboy (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is why we are here Parsecboy, because there is a dispute. LinuxDude (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * --  tariq abjotu  13:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

User:MC Head reported by User:Mosmof (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 05:15, May 7, 2010
 * 2nd revert: 10:29, May 7, 2010
 * 3rd revert: 10:46, May 7, 2010
 * 4th revert: 14:14, May 7, 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 11:11, May 7, 2010

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (User:OlYeller21 left a message on the user talk page)

Comments:


 * --  tariq abjotu  14:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Ari89 reported by User:TBSailors (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 edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Fully protected for one week in lieu of blocking. Tim Song (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Keyser1978 reported by User:O Fenian (Result: stale)
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: (on user's talk page)

Comments:

I have tried to explain that to the editor that his edit is point-of-view and redundant to the description of who considers ETA to be terrorists, but they persist in adding the word in one form or another. O Fenian (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Tim Song (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Darnotley reported by User:Bidgee (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: - Under
 * 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:


 * Orderinchaos 07:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Alwpoe reported by User:Surtsicna (Result: 24 hours)
Page: Beware, Princess Elizabeth

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Jeanne boleyn and I have tried to reach a compromise with the user I reported. However, he/she has refused every compromise I offered. He/she simply reverts. A number of other users disagreed with the user and opposed the changes he/she was making (see this discussion on another page) but the user still refused to cooperate. Surtsicna (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, he or she insists upon inserting false information into an article as if it were historical fact, rather than the personal opinion of a children's novelist. When several editors and myself had asked the user to please compromise he or she refuses to do so and responds with flippant demands for DNA tests, and so on. I should like to point out that Tudor-related Wikipedia articles receive a lot scrutiny by academics and were they to come upon an article which implies that Elizabeth I of England and Mary I of England were stepsisters rather than the factually correct half-sisters, they could possibly use that as an excuse to discredit Wikipedia.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

DrKiernan (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Resource based economy reported by User:Quale (Result: 55h)
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: There have also been some ip edits that appear to be socking by Resource based economy.


 * Blocked for 55h - longer than usual due to the excessive warring on multiple articles. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Esoglou reported by User:LoveMonkey (Result: No violation)
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:I had retired from Wikipedia and I intended to stay retired. I intend to go back and retire after this is addressed and resolved. This editor Lima/Esoglou would cause any editor whom does not have lots and lots of personal time to get frustrated and leave. Causing good contributors to think wikipedia is a frustrating waste of time and their efforts. This editor abuses Wikipedia policies to frustrate editors. This causes people to resent being a contributor. I have attempted overtime to address this person actually over the course of some years. This editor is disruptive and over uses the sourcing requests asking for people to source obvious things You don't need to cite that the sky is blue along with reverting and falsifying sourcing because rather then copy and paste I am trying to copyedit (i.e. recently the editor insists that the sources say the word compromise (which I used) rather then the reconcile)


 * I don't see evidence of a violation of the three-revert rule or a persistent edit-warrior. --  tariq abjotu  14:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Where can I appeal this decision?LoveMonkey (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

MauriceAgrippa reported by 173.76.208.66 (Result: protected)
Page: Noel Gallagher

User being reported: MauriceAgrippa

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: [I provided source for Noel's statement, I suggested reverter go to talk page....I will accept block if necessary to allow for intermediary. This user just set up this account, I am also curious to know if there may be sockpuppetry here]

Comments: Just because I (and apparently a bunch of other users) don't agree with "your" definition of what nationality is does not automatically make me a sockpuppet or a vandal. My recent account creation is irrelevant. If anyone is engaged fully in an edit war, it is you, who continues to be combative and has no other argument except to "take it to the talk page."MauriceAgrippa (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments: This IS NOT "MY" DEFINITION. IT IS LIAM GALLAGHER's. I have provided the source IN QUOTES to you. I am sorry that it doesn't please you. But, whether or not YOU and others agree highlights POV pushing rather than wanting the article to be accurate. Your retort that I simply have some odd "Irish" fixation is a rather contemptable effort at race bating and is deplorable. That behavior and the fact that I am entirely comfortable in knowing that this data is factual, sourced and NOT POV is what led me to independent eyes here for impartial examination. Liam's words are the source. Suggesting that I am combative because I suggest you take it to the talk page--is not an argument--it is an established wp component. It's how wp works. I STILL am curious about the timing of your account registration. Cheers. Thank you Tim for your assistance173.76.208.66 173.76.208.66 (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC) -->

Where exactly in the article does it list Liam Gallagher as an indisputable source for nationality identification? I don't see an anthropological background in either he or his brother's backgrounds. And besides, it is common practice to identify people in any of countries of the UK with as English if they're from England, Scottish if they're from Scotland, etc. This is a basic fact that you seem to not be comfortable with accepting, which says a lot. And you are combative with the fact that you tried to have me blocked in mind. Thanks, but no "cheers" wanted. MauriceAgrippa (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You state on your profile that "I carefully deliberate and want to use sources before contributing." Yet, this sourced and attributed TO Gallagher item is refuted, according to you, not upon source but simply upon YOUR personal belief of how he should be defined. That is amazing! Absolutely amazing how you can not grasp this (it's called POV) and as a "new" editor you should really stop it! Tim, I will appreciate an update from you. Thx. 173.76.208.66  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.208.66 (talk) 03:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I find it quite amusing that I have managed to work you up this much. It's rather fascinating. As a non-administrator, you can only suggest things to me and report me. That's it. Case in point. MauriceAgrippa (talk) 05:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

These comments are odd; but not entirely surprising to me. They highlight that you're not entirely engaged in the wiki process but rather looking to stir up controversy--which is counter to what wiki is all about. You may want to explore those motivations elsewhere buttercup! User talk:173.76.208.66  —Preceding undated comment added 20:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC).


 * - fully protected for 3 days. Tim Song (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Studiodan reported by User:Jakew (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (link)


 * 1st revert: 23:53, May 9, 2010 (reverting to version dated 23:53, May 9, 2010)
 * 2nd revert: 11:15, May 10, 2010 (partial revert, removing images that had been restored in edit dated 11:00, May 10, 2010)
 * 3rd revert: 14:27, May 10, 2010 (reverting to version dated 11:15, May 10, 2010)
 * 4th revert: 15:25, May 10, 2010 (a slightly different change, but another revert, reverting to version dated 15:19, May 10, 2010)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (link to most recent 3RR warning, from April 2010.  User has received other warnings prior to that, and must be presumed to be aware of it.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (see also Talk:Circumcision and Talk:Circumcision)

Comments:

Studiodan has been editing Wikipedia since January and has exclusively made circumcision-related edits. The above report documents his attempts in the past 24 hours to remove an image from the circumcision article (on the puzzling grounds that he believes it to be graphically manipulated), which has been reverted by Avraham and Ossman, in addition to myself. Before that, he made a similarly strenous attempt to remove the date of an American Medical Association report, on similarly baffling grounds. He has been encouraged (eg here, by Atomaton) to seek consensus for controversial changes rather than trying to force them through, but this appears less than successful. Jakew (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC) (corrected 15:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC))

Actually, the edit warring is worse than Jake as shown. Please note:


 * Older revert - shown for history of edit warring: 06:47, May 8, 2010
 * Older revert - shown for history of edit warring: 02:57, May 9, 2010
 * 1st revert: 18:53, May 9, 2010
 * 2nd revert: 04:53, May 10, 2010
 * 3rd revert: 06:15, May 10, 2010
 * 4th revert: 09:27, May 10, 2010
 * 5th revert: 10:19, May 10, 2010
 * 6th revert: 10:25, May 10, 2010

-- Avi (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The report is wrong. Only 3 edits were made, the first edit shown was on the previous day. Avraham's claimed reverts are all of my edits on the article, only 3 of which are reverts.--Studiodan (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 31h. At least four reverts in the last 24 hours. (22:53 yesterday and 10:15 13:27 and 14:25 today, not to mention an additional one early on 9 May). Black Kite (t) (c) 21:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Brother743 reported by User:Bantam1983 (Result: No vio/stale)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stefan_Molyneux&action=historysubmit&diff=346711864&oldid=344887858
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stefan_Molyneux&action=historysubmit&diff=350094433&oldid=348790294
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stefan_Molyneux&action=historysubmit&diff=358517765&oldid=357600873
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stefan_Molyneux&action=historysubmit&diff=357495271&oldid=357033219

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AStefan_Molyneux&action=historysubmit&diff=357494782&oldid=355553331

Comments:

Brother743 appears to be a shill that does nothing but edit the article on Molyneux to make him look as badly as possible, removing anything at all that disagrees with the narrative that Brother743 is telling - namely, that Molyneux is some kind of child-stealing bogeyman. Just look at his contribs page if you want evidence of that. I warned him, he continued to revert, and he demanded to hear moderator input before he'd stop. So here it is. Bantam1983 (talk) 09:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No violation Edits are over a 3 month period and last one was over two weeks ago. Suggest that parties consider dispute resolution. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the dispute resolution suggestionBrother743 (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

User:EditorASC reported by User:Silver seren (Result: )
Pages: (primarily)

User being reported:

Welcome Aboard Toxic Airlines:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Aerotoxic syndrome:

Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:

Aerotoxic Association:

Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Welcome Aboard Toxic Airlines:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Aerotoxic syndrome:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (ongoing edit war that began in April)

Aerotoxic Association:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

There has been a slowly building edit war occurring on these three articles (and to some extent also on the article about Bleed air) that has involved this user. The user himself has stated that he disbelieves in the existence of Aerotoxic syndrome. Being a pilot himself, combined with his edits that added criticism to the articles, while taking out positive sources and information, made it seem to me that he had a conflict of interest. I pointed this out to him, but he was adamant that he had no COI problems and that me saying such was a personal attack. Since then, there has been a back and forth between me and him, with the user mostly removing information from the articles, which I subsequently reverted. My attempts to discuss things out with him on the talk pages have not had much effect at all. Thus, I have brought this report here to see if some sort of resolution can be made in this edit war. I accept responsibility for any negligence or bad editing on my part, if an admin decides that I was the one in the wrong. Silver seren C 01:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Further Comment: I would also like to link to the two AfDs created by the user, the Aerotoxic Association AfD and the Welcome Aboard Toxic Airlines AfD, both of which closed with no Delete votes whatsoever. It was because of these nominations and the description by this user in the nominations, that I first suspected COI. Silver seren C 02:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I will file my reply on this board, but since the issue is really about multiple attempts to sprinkle spam links across several different Wiki articles, as support for articles that were created in the first place as spam pages for a film, book and an organization that is promoting that book and film, it will take some time for me to provide a coherent history of why there is an alleged "edit war" in the first place. Hopefully, I will be able to work out the time to respond within the next 24 hours. Thanks much, EditorASC (talk) 01:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it would be just a tad bit more fair, if you wait until I am able to state my case in full, and then you can properly add all the Further Comments that you desire. It is taking me longer than I anticipated to put the necessary information together, since there is so much to be sorted out that is relevant, and also because I am not feeling very well these last few days.  I will post my response, as soon as I am able to complete it.  I will not be making any additional Wiki edits while this complaint is still in the pending resolution process, so no one has to worry that a minor delay will enable me to do more dastardly deeds. Thanks, EditorASC (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Schapel reported by User:Aavindraa
This user cannot comprehend Mozilla Firefox's version scheme, and is constantly reverting edits without thought. I tried [explaining http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Schapel#Firefox_3.7], but the user could not understand. Can someone please step in and provide another voice to this issue? I've been reverting his reverts, and he even reverts without considering intermediary changes I've made. This user's behavior is destructive and needs addressing, as is evidence by his talk page and multiple other talk pages. Avindra talk / contribs 06:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

User:69.234.202.41 reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: 24h)
has been warned by three editors on his talk page about his disruptive edits at Frank Frazetta, where he persists in adding a possibly decorative/copyvio image gallery in the lead. The gallery has been moved to the end of the article, but he keep reinserting it in the lead. He has done this four times in fewer than 20 minutes today:


 * 1) (cur | prev) 20:41, 11 May 2010 69.234.202.41 (talk) (18,816 bytes) (undo)
 * 2) (cur | prev) 20:46, 11 May 2010 69.234.202.41 (talk) (18,617 bytes) (undo)
 * 3) (cur | prev) 20:51, 11 May 2010 69.234.202.41 (talk) (18,367 bytes) (undo)
 * 4) (cur | prev)  20:59, 11 May 2010 69.234.202.41  (talk) (18,069 bytes) (undo)

Additionally, because the subject of the article is a fantasy artist who recently died, it may be necessary to semi-protect the page so that anonymous-IP fans unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines be discouraged from making fannish edits. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Leadwind reported by User:ReaverFlash (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning by another editor on another article:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Another editor has talked about this subject on the talk page: Leadwind, when not signed in, edited using the IP address.

Flash 23:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

User:<Moondyne reported by [Cowabunga438] (Result: )
Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Watson#Circumnavigation_scrutiny

User being reported:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jessica_Watson&action=history

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

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

Comments:

Having editied and redited an article at moondyne's request. Including making SEVERAL compromises, moodyne continues to revert the page.
 * Comment: Reporter is already blocked, and the page semi-protected to stop IP sockpuppetry. Dayewalker (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Elummah reported by User:Jiujitsuguy (Result: 24h block etc.)
Page:

User being reported: ElUmmah (talk)

first revert

second revert

third revert

fourth revert

fifth revert

sixth revert

seventh revert

eighth revert

Page:

User being reported: ElUmmah (talk)

first revert

second revert

third revert

fourth revert

fifth revert

Page:

first revert

second revert

Page:

first revert

second revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: |here

Comments: ElUmmah (talk) appears to be a single purpose account and a relentless reverter. The above reverts were all done within a span of 24 hours without discussion. All edits dealt with Arab-Israeli conflict. I also believe that he is socking with Vicimanno (talk), another SPA. He has already been warned of his disruptive practices here, in connection w/ Yom Kippur War, here, in connection with South Lebanon conflict and here, in connection with List of wars 1945-1989. Request block.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The edits at are contiguous and so count as a single large edit.
 * notified of WP:ARBPIA
 * blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring, chiefly at but elsewhere too.
 * cautioned for low-level edit-warring at CIreland (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it unlikely that is a sock of  but file an SPI if you want to pursue it. CIreland (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Headbomb reported by User:AnmaFinotera (Result: )
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 and his removal

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: user talk, article talk, request for dispute resolution at project

Comments:

User:Headbomb restored this list from its being redirected to the main article in June 2009, per consensus, as it had been primarily copyvio and nothing but titles after all that was removed. I initially disagreed with his restoration, but as he added air dates figured that was fine and proceeded to properly format the list using the episode list template, adding a basic lead, adding the basic ELs. He then began engaging in an edit war to restore "his" preferred version, first just to restore his use of a non-reliable source (IMDB), and to claim that his format is the proper format per "featured lists" (it is not). The format I put in place follows what is proper per FLs and WP:MOSTV. I attempted to discuss it with him on his talk page, but he continued reverting while we were talking and refusing to simply continue editing with the new, proper format. I asked him repeatedly to stop per WP:EDITWAR but he continued reverting without any regard for his having destroyed the format for the sake of a non-reliable source. I also started a discussion at the talk page, requesting additional views from the project as well, but after I posted those, he reverted again. And before anyone points it out, yes I have now technically done four reverts as well, and if someone decides we both need punishing, so be it. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Fucking christ, you really can't stand it when people try to do stuff do you? I don't give a rat's ass about what external links go in, and what format the list ends up in, what I want it to be able to edit the damn thing without conflicting every two seconds because he can't accept that it takes time to fill in the blanks. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice edit summary. I love having my watchlist suddenly pop up profanity. -- King Öomie  17:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * (EC) Profanity is unnecessary. I started my reformat at 12:02, and posted it at 12:11. During that was a single edit conflict with you adding the link to the IMDB (an edit I did not see until I posted) - an edit you did eight minutes after your last edit. You did not once mark the article as in use indicating you were actively editing, and nothing in your edit summaries previously indicated that you intended to do anything other than restore the list you felt should not have been redirected. I am not a mind reader anymore than anyone else. Even during our discussion, you never ONCE said "sorry about that but I'm actively adding more content and its already in progress hence my needing X format". Nor did you make any attempt to have civil conversation, rather you first gave no edit summary at all, then after you appeared to stop editing and I continued, you reverted with the lovely summary of "will you JUST WAIT, for odin's sake you can fill eveything in two seconds" - that's neither civil nor informative (and please leave whatever issues you have with seemingly various deities out of this conversation). I in fact gave you a minute yet you still did nothing but restore the IMDB reference which could just as easily have been done without undoing the proper formatting. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's pretty damned obvious that I'm working on it now ain't it? And I DID indicate that I wanted some time. And it's hard to believe that you even desire a civil discussion considered you call my edits trash, and try to get me blocked because you couldn't be bothered to wait for three seconds. So, how about you go your way, and I go my way. I get to edit the page for a few hours, and then you can impose whatever style you want? Deal? Or will you insist on getting me blocked? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not my call. You edit warred and were, and continue to be, extremely uncivil, throwing out profanity in every edit. I called your format trash, not your edits, and frankly it is ugly. That atrocious orange (just because one article uses it does not make it good), the completely unnecessary splitting of the film into its own "season" when it clearly isn't and has its own article and the unnecessary listing of the same writers over and over instead of just putting it in the lead. Have you ever done an FL quality episode list before? Or even a B class one? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In the meantime you can edit List of The O.C. episodes, the featured list, I'm basing myself on. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You do realize that that is a different type of list, right. And let's not forget that it passed in 2008, not recently. Forever Knight didn't run long enough to require separate season pages, hence my doing the proper episode list for a single list. Sorry if I know nothing about crafting featured lists, nor in creating them or how they are formatted, I just helped write the silly guidelines is all, know the difference in the two kinds of episode lists, and look at ALL of the featured lists not just the one that has a good lead. --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you even grasp the concept of a works in progress? I'm not here to compare e-dicks, I'm here to turn things like this into things like this. Readers will be grateful, and I couldn't care less if you aren't. I'm done with the thing, so have your way with it all you want now.  Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you grasp the concept of civility or sandbox or, oh yeah, using the WIP/In Use templates? Oh yeah, look at those episodes lists (oh wait, they aren't). If you want to be rude, go ahead. I don't care. I will take your remark to mean that if I clean up the list per proper formatting standards you will NOT revert. I trust an admin to act accordingly if you do. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 21:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * After his above claim that he was "done", Headbomb turned around and reverted an edit I did on Forever Knight, a different article. Seems clear he intends to carry on his "beef" just to do so at this point. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 21:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have now opened an ANI thread about this, as it has extended beyond edit warring. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 21:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Huldra reported by User:No More Mr Nice Guy (Result: )
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: [diff]

Comments: This page is under WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions.


 * For the record; I have reverted myself on Sderot, and reported the issue here:  WP:RS. I strongly urge admins to read that before they decide anything.  When editors prefer  people like David Duke as WP:RP to Newsweek journalist and author...what on earth can I say? Huldra (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Secondly: also, for the record; I have never been warned/notified of the above mentioned WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions. However, User:No More Mr Nice Guy has: . Regards, Huldra (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you saying you are not aware of WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions ? Momma&#39;s Little Helper (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Sweetpoet reported by User:Novaseminary (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert: (by apparent sock, Special:Contributions/151.202.35.128
 * 4th revert: (also by the IP sock)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: IP sock warning

User warning 1

User warning 2 and offer to drop if user self-reverts

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: and also see this section of the talk page generally.

Comments:

The user all but admitted he was the sock and had contravened 3RR with these edits to the talk page of the article in question.

The same editor engaged in related edit war behavior at Separated brethren as the edit history around the same time indicates.

On neither page did I reinsert the merge proposal banner because that would put me in violation of 3RR. If anyone would see fit to do so, I would appreciate it.

Novaseminary (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * And these edits to my talk page (with my response) seem further proof that this editor is not ready to stop. Novaseminary (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I took the time to state my case, at length, on the talk page, in detail, even quoting VERBATIM Wikipedia policy and points of notability that really support my position. Instead of just putting wiki links, and citations, I put actual quotations. That should have been enough for Novaseminary to realize that this subject warranted its own article.   (Also, I never admitted anything.  He just wants me blocked, and the thing removed, so he reported me to get me in trouble, to simply get me out of the way of his goal to get rid of an article he doesn't personally like, and to violate Wikipedia policy of clear and proven and even admitted notability and "subject ALONE sourced and referenced" issues and evidence etc that I clearly quoted verbatim to him, and even though he himself was engaging in edit warring.   On "Separated brethren" I violated no actual rule, and in the history you see HIM doing the reverting too.   Two to tango.    Yet according to him, I was the only one "warring".      And even though I discussed the matter fully already on the talk page.)


 * like about "subject alone sourced" and "secondary sources" etc etc, and "documentation," and other points of notability and stand-alone issues and importance.


 * Put simply, if a specific subject or term can be sourced BY ITSELF, then that is one big reason it warrants a stand-alone article. As well as the fact that it's a known term in general


 * Wikipedia Policy


 * "ONLY IF appropriate sources cannot be found after a good-faith search for them, consider merging the article's content into a broader article providing context."


 * But there is a number of sources that deal with the specific term "Separated brethren" alone. So to answer the question, yes, I do have WP policy and guideline to support my position. This subject alone is easily sourced, and easily recognized, and independent, on its own, and can be proven to be so...and that's a lot of the criteria and policy.


 * Merging should NOT be considered if

1. The resulting article is too long or "clunky" 2. The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross linked) articles  3. The topics are discrete subjects and deserve their own articles even though they may be short


 * as for number 3, there's NO QUESTION that that applies to the "Separated brethren" article. It's a subject that ALONE is sourced and referenced and of interest and importance. There is a number of sources that deal with the specific term "Separated brethren" alone.


 * I spelled all these things out, in detail, took the time, and discussed it at length.


 * So, as I said, to answer his question, yes, I do have WP policy and guideline to support my position. This subject alone is easily sourced, and easily recognized, and independent, on its own, and can be proven to be so...and that's a lot of the criteria and policy. As he himself admitted. peace.Sweetpoet (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What does this have to do with breaking 3RR? If this were a BLP issue you might have an excuse, but this isn't an excuse. And it looks pretty clear that you are the IP, will you please state whether you are or not? Dougweller (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I would also note that this editor continues to make dozens of edits, many to soften (or something) his old comments on the talk page as evidenced by the history. He is also now making many, many edits to the Separated brethren article (that I had proposed merging, setting off this editor) some of which appear to be POV which might explain his umbrage at my merger proposal. I would also note that this editor has been blocked for violating 3RR before which may be why he switched to an IP for 2 edits, and once before for another reason, all in the less than three months his account has been open. Novaseminary (talk) 13:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * After looking at this again and his block history, I've decided to block for 24 hours. I'm not happy about the IP sock. Sweetpoet, if you want to deny that you were the IP then any Admin can unblock you but I'll ask for an SPI check, which if it comes up positive will almost certainly result in a longer block. Dougweller (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * by . The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

User:ScottPAnderson reported by User:Squiddy (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of General welcome & pointer to some of the policy Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning (by another editor):

He has also been offered advice by myself and a different editor here: in response to my pointer to policy on his talkpage.

On Mau Mau page:

And on user talk page, since this pattern of editing is over various different articles: as has another user [] generally.

Comments:

As well as the reverts on Mau Mau Uprising, the user has reverted 5 times on Hola massacre and 4 times on Muzungu.

Informing this new editor of wiki-policy has not changed his behaviour, except that he now quotes wiki-policy in the edit summaries of his reverts. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  13:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Now under discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  15:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Mysteryman557 reported by User:Acps110 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff


 * 1st revert: diff
 * 2nd revert: diff
 * 3rd revert: [none yet]
 * 4th revert: [none yet]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] (I have only attempted contact on the User's talk page with two messages.)

Comments:

Not a three revert yet, but edit warring within minutes of me removing un-sourced information. This car has only been mentioned, there are no reliable sources to be found on it. It was never designed, purchased or put into service.

A Google Search on the term 'R83 New York City Subway' only brings up NYCsubway.org, Wikipedia and the NYC Transit Forums.

An additional Template being edit-warred at the same time is NYCS rolling stock

Acps110 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Ліонкінг reported by User:Tuscumbia (Result: No action. Being discussed at WP:AE)
Pages:

User being reported:

Shusha

Previous version reverted to:


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

Khojavend (town)

Previous version reverted to:


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

Zəngilan

Previous version reverted to:


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

Stepanakert

Previous version reverted to:


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

Aşağı Ağcakənd

Previous version reverted to:


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

Lachin

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning (inconjunction with the report): ,

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

Comments:

The user has been engaging in extensive edit-warring for quite some time. The above articles are about cities/towns/regions of Azerbaijan currently under military control of Armenian forces as a result of Nagorno-Karabakh War. The territories are thus under de-facto rule of self-proclaimed NKR which has claimed the autonomous region of NKAO of Azerbaijan in 1988 but eventually occupied more than the claimed territory - 7 surrounding regions of Kelbajar, Zangelan, Lachin, Qubadli, Jabrayil, Agdam, Fizuli (last two partially). These regions along with the regions within the Azerbaijani NKAO were incorporated into unrecognized NKR and their names were changed by the unrecognized authorities. The self-proclaimed country is not recognized by any other countries and any international organization from UN to EC to OIC, etc. Similarly, the Armenian names given by the de-facto regime are not recognized either by any country. The international community recognizes their legitimate names by de-jure government of Azerbaijan. All proper and internationally recognized names are noted by GEOnet Names Server in these articles above in References sections.

The user Ліонкінг tries to override that reality by imposing the Armenian names in Wikipedia by inserting the Template:NKR created by him into these article with different names, unsourced by neutral websites and legitimate bodies, thus misleading the reader. For instance, Zangilan is presented as Kovsakan in his template, Lachin as Berdzor, etc. The user keeps edit-warring while the issue of this template has been taken to the relevant board for discussion on deletion:. Moreover, the user who tries to reach his aim, reported me here ], rather unsuccessfully. My statement is here explaining his objectives: As soon as the case was closed by the admin as inactionable obviously to his surprise, the user Ліонкінг proceeded to his edit-warring 12 minutes later once again reverting all those pages:, , , , , , , , , , , , now taking it a step further by actually inserting unrecognized names into the articles. This can be similarly classified only as a case of music piracy when the songs are appropriated, altered, their names changed but still are unrecgonized as a violation of copyright laws.

Here he disregards WP:AGF sarcastically referring to some defeat, not sure which, but apparently referring to support from Armenian users on deletion discussion:. Here he apparently takes an advantage of 3RR rule and reverts again (apparently unaware that I've done 2 reverts when 3 are allowed):  Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 21:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * About my edits. My first edit was that I've fullfilled the articles with template. User:Brandmeister take this template for deletion. Tuscumbia take part in discussion here, but he start revert all my edits where I've fill the template. I've reverted this edits because we are discussing it here. This user reverts my edits during the discussion, in my POV it is very rudely, so I've reverted it back twice. I've remind him that he has already make 2 reverts (I've done also 2 reverts) and decided to make a claim against. Another fact is that yesterday I make a claim against him and today he try to use administrative functions for revenge.
 * The actions of this user are unadequate because he always reverts my edits and never search consensus. It is his principal position. He just harass my edits and revert them. He use wikipedia as a weapon of Azeri propoganda. His edits aren't neutral. I would not discuss here the template, here is a discussion page about this template. But this user try to start new discussion about this template everywhere he can. So I think that sanctions must be against Tuscumbia, because he don't assumes the good intentions and hassar me everywhere he can. --Ліонкінг (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment If administrators have any questions to me I'll answer to them. I would not answer on any statement of pro-Azeri users here, because even here they try to make a battle. --Ліонкінг (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by an uninvolved editor. As I see there might also be a little problem with the ability of expressing himself in English of the responding party and having observed the recent developments and actions taking place in a certain group of articles lately, and because this issue is already brought to ANI, I would like to ask for and also bring to the attention of the according Administrator, that will see to this issue, several issues:
 * A group of editors (Tuscumbia, NovaSkola, Brandmeister and may be others) started violating multiple points of Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 (such as Diplomacy, Consensus, Disruptive editing, Not a battleground, national sources etc.) As I see, but am not sure, it started with a removal of harmless template containing links to articles and moving articles to a different heading (name) by the above mentioned.
 * Not being quite able to further escalate the issue, when other editors got involved, one of them proposed the deletion of the template itself Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_11.
 * The other, as we can see, issued a call for an attention of an Admin here to the user (Ліонкінг) having created and advocated it against the deletion for no good reason and discussion. Once again, the template includes only links to the articles it is related to.
 * Having said all these, I'd like to ask and urge the administrator to make a detailed review (at least the recent) of user-contributions of the Filing Party by the admin.
 * NOTA BENNE. I want to inform all the parties interested in the integrity of Wikipedia, that recently there have been multiple announcements in Azeri Mass-Media for everybody to engage in edit warring on Wikipedia, as for example: (the article is in Russian) is. These recent calls for all to engage in editing "the wrong and false articles" on Wikipedia may be directly connected with what we experience now, here. It is now, in my opinion, very important for all, especially the administrators, to be attentive and vigilant in these circumstances. Aregakn (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I just want to say, administrators of Wikipedia should take serious action against editors as recently, in most Karabakh related articles, nearly every Azerbaijani city or villages population is decreased by armenian users. That's right by not other nations but armenians. Ліонкінг and Aregakn is just small part of big iceberg and soon situation could escalate to other concequences such as armenian cities could be facing same fate. So I urge Wiki Admins to take strategic (long-term) and wise move. --NovaSkola (talk) 04:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think the actions of caused a lot of problems in AA articles. He created a template and inserted it into a number of articles without a consensus with other involved editors, who by the way are all well established users with thousands of edits, so Aregakn's allegation that the dispute has something to do with an article in Azerbaijani media lacks any foundation. WP:AE would be a more appropriate place for this report.  Grand  master  05:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, attaching editors to some article in Azerbaijani media is a baseless accusation. As if these editors never edited Azerbaijan-related articles and all of a sudden after reading some article in media, they ambushed these articles. Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 15:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * NovaSkola, have You forgotten Your edits with Martuni and Martakert? I can remind You just here.
 * Grandmaster, do You want to say that Tou are a well established user and I'm not? Or I don't have some thousand edits? (at the momet more than 5 thousand). I know You fronm ruwiki during a long period and You know me too, so don't meslead others here. You perfectly know that in ruwiki (where You spend main part of Your time) such template exist and You've done nothing there to delete it. And know You say that this template is was inserted without consensus? I can believe anybody, but not to You according to the mentioned.
 * On the post of Tuscumbia I'll not answer as there are only propaganda and nothing connected with real facts. --Ліонкінг (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Did I say that you were not an established user? I don't remember ever saying anything like that. And Russian wiki is irrelevant to English one. Grand  master  06:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I do not see why you, guys, would become defnsive, if there is no connection between those activisations we see. This is a place where things are brought to the attention of Admins and so I did. Aregakn (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Grandmaster, You've said: without a consensus with other involved editors, who by the way are all well established users with thousands of edits, so You mean that I don't have some 5,5 thousand edits (for example it is more than in 4 times more than has Tuscumbia, I've nearly equal number edits as NovaSkola and You have more edits than we all together but it doesn't mean that You are more equal than others. Wikipedia it is one big project which have a lot of smaller projects. You participate in both Russian and English projects but in Russian it is acceptable to You to have such template while in English no. If I don't know You for 2 years, I wanted to know the answer, but as I do, I wouldn't ask You, as answer I know. --Ліонкінг (talk) 08:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment:: Here we go, we got perfect example of accusation from Ліонкінг on the adress of other users which include myself and User:Grandmaster without having constructive argument, while praising himself that he got more than 5000 edits which clearly shows that he is using his image to achieve his goals against Azerbaijani articles, which clearly violates Wikipedia's policies. I have at least 2-ce more edits than Ліонкінг but I am not my using my edit figures to violate Wikipedia's regulations so I urge admins to take action.--NovaSkola (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment. It is so very much like a purely biased editor to divide Wikipedia into state or national belonging. NovaSkola, you clearly don't know what wikipedia is telling these things, so it would be a reasonable recommendation, that you open an Azeri website and blog to call whatever written there "Azeri". Your comments seem to be nothing more than an attack for defense. '''I do very much wish to see the Admin going throuth all the invovled users' accounts. Maybe even mine, because in such an atmosphere of permanent "combat" instead of editing articles one can make mistakes. This also shows how by some editors Wikipedia is divided into "spheres of influence", belonging zones and can serve as one other possible evidence of the "misterious connection" between the Azeri mass-media and Wiki editing activities of this type mentioned in my above NOTA BENNE'''. Aregakn (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Please don't accuse me of something, when topic is clear about different user. In fact, same thing you talked about Azeri media could be applied to your relation with Armenian media and the funny thing is, this person accuses other users without having constructive evidence. Its also not surprising to see you, ALWAYS NEAR Ліонкінг, which kind of raises question of close relations between two users and their conspiracy against Azerbaijani related articles. --NovaSkola (talk) 03:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, this rubject is about filing a request after multiple violations by all of you of the same rules and by provoking such behavior from the answering user's side. And do not speak "in the air". I brought proofs of my words, unlike you. Aregakn (talk) 04:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment NovaSkola, I'll remind You who are You in this conflict. During the discussion in the Martuni talk page in which You haven't even participated, You twicely rudely moved the name of article and more than that You have protected it on Your version during the discussion. Then You have tried to use similar scheme with Martakert. You've moved it without any discussion and wanted to protect it on Your version, but I've stopped You. So neutral users can see who You are and wich disruptive edits You do. When You've said that Aregakn is ALWAYS near me, I can answer You that Tuscumbia, Brendmeister and Grandmaster (periodicaly other Azeri users) are always near You. I don't know what do You mean with conspiracy against Azerbaijani related articles, but I've seen a real disruptive edits from Your side. And they were organised by several number of users. --Ліонкінг (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment I would like to remind Aregakn that he is the one in trouble with his record and misbehavior and that clearly exhibited by admins not only in their decision to place him on thin ice but also in rejection of his appeal here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=362175653#Result_of_the_appeal_by_Aregakn and to the Ліонкінг, yes, I take responsibility for editing Khojavend town, which you armenians claim your own but I had constructive evidence as it was de-jure part of Azerbaijan not armenia or some place else, which puts firm dot on this issue. For lawyer, you should know this terminology, kind of raises doubt on your personal skill. And also, I added relevant sources as Wikipedia allows links from foreign countries, which you also accuse me of doing, while forgetting your the one, who also uses links from armenian sites. I hope my answer, once for all settles this issues for both of you--NovaSkola (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note to Admin. I would like to ask the admin to pay attention to NovaSkola's malicious calumny against me:
 * 1) The AE was not connected to my behavior or anything alike. It is a "ban" to publicly even propose a possibility of vandalism besides obvious 3RR or blanking etc. for 1 month.
 * 2) The appeal has not been rejected. It is in process and as I see it unjust and lacking bases in any way, and nobody even tries to prove the opposite, I am going to take it until the very end.
 * 3) Though registered there because of proposing to consider a possibility of vandalism in the case of Hittit related to Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 AE, it has nothing to do with that AE and so nothing to do with this context.
 * Please take into consideration the manner of warring with editors to neutralise them. Aregakn (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - No action, being discussed at AE. See the proposal made by AGK over at the other board. There is no advantage in making an independent inquiry here at 3RR, since AE has a better structure for dealing with messy cases and long-running disputes. A somewhat related discussion is happening at Templates for discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Malarious reported by Daicaregos (Result: Stale)
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:

User did not engage on article Talk page until after warning left on user's Talk page, after which further revert made. Daicaregos (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Stale. User:Malarious's last edit to this article was on 14 May. If warring breaks out again, action may be taken. EdJohnston (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Littlemark2009 reported by User:I42 (Result: Warned)
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: earlier discussion suggestion to the user they should contribute there on their talk page edit summary whilst reverting them.

Reporter's additional comments:

The article is about an album which has received mixed reviews (the artist has polarised opinion so that is not too surprising) and a balanced set of reviews has been gathered, per discussion on the talk page. This editor repeatedly replaces the less favourable reviews with more favourable ones. This has been happening over a period of several days, with different editors reverting them. Today the user reverted twice. I informed them of the talk page discussion and WP:3RR but they have now reverted twice more.


 * User's response:
 * My follow-up to that:

I42 (talk) 13:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Fifth diff. I42 (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

(Littlemark2009 is also making these contentious edits without an edit summary, and generally marking them as minor. I42 (talk))

(Littlemark2009 also removed this report when informed about it. I42 (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC))

Comments:


 * Result - Warned. Littlemark2009 has not edited Wikipedia since 15 May. If he continues to revert at Songs from the Tainted Cherry Tree, he may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Omar-Toons (Result: no action)
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:

Looks preeeeety malformed to me. Just sayin' :> Doc9871 (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll close this one. No warning, no diffs, etc etc. Dougweller (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Emo coheed reported by User:IllaZilla (Result: 48 hour block)
Page: (the user's editing pattern is spread across numerous articles, but I'll use this one as the example since it's the one that brought the behavior to my attention.)

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

What we've got here is your garden-variety genre warrior: A single-purpose account whose entire contribution history consists of altering the genre field of music infoboxes and/or the genre categories to suit their own point of view. The user goes around to articles about their favorite bands and albums, changing the genres to whatever they feel they ought to be, without regard for whether those genres are sourced or even mentioned in the article body at all. The user provides no sources to back up the genres they're adding/changing, nor any edit summaries to explain why they're changing them. I've warned the user with all three levels of uw-genre1, yet the behavior continues. Since the user seems unwilling to communicate, heed warnings, or stop their POV-motivated editing, I think a block is in order. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 48 hours for multiple 3RR violations, and a stern warning about original research. SGGH ping! 12:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Wildhartlivie reported by Jack Merridew (Result: no action )
Page:

User being reported:


 * diff spanning the lot

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
 * 1) 03:28, 15 May 2010  (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 71.115.11.157 (talk) to last version by 76.113.191.236")
 * 2) 05:29, 15 May 2010  (edit summary: "unsourced")
 * 3) 20:28, 15 May 2010  (edit summary: "no valid reason to out this child's name")
 * 4) 21:44, 15 May 2010  (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Americus55 (talk) to last version by Wildhartlivie")

Above were from the tool on offer and something's amiss. Below are manually done.


 * 1) 03:28, 15 May 2010
 * 2) 05:29, 15 May 2010
 * 3) 20:28, 15 May 2010
 * 4) 21:44, 15 May 2010

Comments:

I am uninvolved in this article, having never edited it. Jack Merridew 22:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

And since when does a wikistalking editor who spends an inordinate amount of time harassing me (see User talk:Doc9871 for his bad faith accusations of me being a sock master to the Pinkadelica account) get relieved from issuing a 3RR warning if he sees it happening? This editor I reverted is outing the real name of a non-notable daughter born to a convicted murderer who was put up for adoption after birth. This is a matter of purposely invading the privacy of a non-notable offspring. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's covered by WP:NPF and WP:BLPNAME. Rossrs (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I am also uninvolved having never edited the article, but User:Wildhartlivie's edits seem to be within "The three-revert rule does not apply to ... unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons." One is changing a name that was given wrongly, one was removing an unsourced addition, and two were in naming a child that was given for adoption, which is not acceptable per WP:BLP.  It's also interesting, given that User:Jack Merridew and User:Wildhartlivie have a substantial history of dispute, that the other editor, User:Americus55, performed 3 reverts without even receiving a warning for potential violation of 3RR but Wildhartlivie is reported.  This report seems a little opportunistic to me.  Rossrs (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * @whl; I said no such thing on Doc's page; I was offering him other interesting links concerning edit overlaps. I didn't warn you because I saw this after-the-fact. You revert endlessly and much of it has nothing to do with vandalism. For example, how is someone adding wikilink brackets to "Seattle, Washington" WP:VANDALISM? Jack Merridew 23:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * more: There *was* a source on-offer: Diane Downs' Murder Case: Daughter Speaks Out and it give ABC News at the bottom. The daughter is not seeking anonymity, she appeared on tv, last night, and discussed all this. Jack Merridew 23:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * more reverts inappropriately tagged as vandalism:    . These are content disputes and ownership. Jack Merridew 23:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Bullshit, Jack. Those edits were each and every one by the same editor, and if you would actually make an effort to investigate and check them as much as you spend in attacking and harassing me and drawing unfounded conclusions, you would find that each of them falsely claim appearances by actors in episodes that do not exist for a season SEVEN of the series. In fact, the season is only in its SIXTH season and none of the episodes given are real. That was flat out vandalism and you truly need to get over yourself and your perception of superiority and stop wikistalking me and attacking for something that is blatantly false. I'm sick of these sorts of accusations, this was not content disputes or ownership. It was VANDALISM. I certainly hope this isn't representative of conclusions you would draw if you were made a sysop, since you don't seem to be capable of checking the veracity of edits that you falsely claim are content disputes or ownership. Your constant attacks are harassment and spiteful. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I was just checking the edits Jack Merridew claim violate 3RR. As Rossrs noted, these edits were not to the same content: The first edit here was to change the erroneous change of name, the second edit here removed unsourced content addition that violates WP:BLP, the third revert here removed the addition of the adopted out child's name by an IP and the last revert here repeated that removal. The point where I removed it as unsourced in fact gave no source. Missed that, huh? There was no 3RR violation present here. Own your posts on Doc's page, Jack. They are evidence of your harassment of me. As for the DeVito revert you posted, so I picked the wrong link to revert from the mess the "new look" upgrades put in force. You are not the arbiter of what is right and wrong and your harassment of me is widely known and documented. Leave me the hell alone and stop wikistalking me. I do believe this is the same sort of harassment that led to Jack Merridew being required to have a mentor to monitor his conduct when his ban was lifted - his conduct toward another editor. It needs to stop. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * See the fixed set of diffs; they're straight reverts; whatever gets added, you take it back to your version. Jack Merridew 23:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Edits don't have to be to the same content, just to the same article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See 3RR: "The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of the three-revert rule: Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates Biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." As I said, one of the reverts was to remove totally unsourced content that would, in and of itself, violated WP:BLP. One of the reverts falls completely under this. There was no violation of WP:3RR. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is this really an attempt to block an editor for a 3RR violation in order to prevent the project from disruption? I think this report should be closed and moved to another venue, where I'll happily participate (among others, I'm sure).  Cheers... :> Doc9871 (talk) 11:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You guys should knock down a notch the 3RR/BLP rhetoric and discuss this on the article's talk page. A quick search for Rebecca Babcock ABC 20/20 shows that she indeed appeared on ABC as the (obscure to me) website claimed. However, simply adding her name to the infobox is unsatisfactory to a reader, and potentially confusing to BLP hawks. A few sentences explaining the relevance of her name and her story added to the article would have been a more intelligent way forward. You could also use the official ABC link ... Pcap ping  13:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this should be closed with no action needed. Please any editor interested, go to the discussion at the talk page.  More input would really be appreciated.  We are already discussing all of this at the talk page.  Thanks, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  14:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, closing this. Dougweller (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

User:81.100.215.14 reported by User:The Four Deuces (Result: 31h)
. : Time reported: 03:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


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

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


 * 1) 01:23, 16 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "this is a smear term that is highly deficient at describing the political spectrum, particularly these people as they oppose authoritianism which is a significant part of what "far-right" implies")
 * 2) 01:51, 16 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 362360729 by Will Beback (talk) I did specify why I did this in the edit summary, it was not a mistake.")
 * 3) 02:10, 16 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 362362433 by The Four Deuces (talk) ok, I have expanded my reasons on the discussion page.")
 * 4) 03:15, 16 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Moving criticism and critical descriptions of the society to an appropriate section of their own")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

—TFD (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I made my first edit, which was simply deleting a defamatory term from the introduction sentence, and put my reason in the edit-summary. My edit was reverted and I was told that I needed to explain why I make an edit in the edit-summary. So naturally, I reverted my edit back and explained that I had already done that.

Next, TFD comes along and reverts my edit again. He says that I must explain myself in the discussion forum. So I elaborated a longer explanation in the discussion forum and reverted my edit back, again.

Then TFD reverts my edit for the third time and threatens to block me, with no explanation other than that he's been arguing against moving this defamatory term for a while now and has knighted himself judge and jury about whether it gets moved.

It seems to me that TFD and this other guy have, for some reason, an agenda to keep this defamatory term (which seeks to tar-brush by association the John Birch Society with supremacy groups) in the opening sentence of the article. I sought to resolve this by creating an entirely new section for "Criticism" and moved all the critical elements of the article into that section. I thought that this would fix the issue by allowing these defamatory terms, that were sourced, to reside, and yet keep a neutral opening sentence that didn't attempt to conjure reader prejudices. That was promptly reverted by TFD again without any explanation.

I would like to make a complaint about the way that TFD has handled this, and how he appears to be sitting on this article and, despite the clear protestations of numerous other readers of wikipedia from the discussion forum, ensuring that his defamatory term remains in the opening sentence. I have no idea what his motive is, but he is blocking what is clearly a majority will and attempts to bully people.--81.100.215.14 (talk) 04:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Now user TFD and Everard Proudfoot are removing my sourced material from the article, whilst simultaneously accusing me of removing sourced material, when in fact I only moved it to a new section. I would like to include Everard Proudfoot in my complaint. --81.100.215.14 (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Will Beback also reversed your edit today. TFD (talk) 04:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * He only did so on what appeared to be a mistake on his part, in that he didn't see my edit-summary the first time.--81.100.215.14 (talk) 05:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't make any mistake. I see the anon has reverted again.    Will Beback    talk    05:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well you certainly did make a mistake, because you said I needed to explain my edit in the edit-summary, and I already had. And what is "Anon" supposed to mean?  Am I a second-class Wikipedia user because I have an number string ID instead of an alphabetical string ID?--81.100.215.14 (talk) 05:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Anon" is simply a slang term which describes people who edit Wikipedia anonymously. And, no, you are not a second-class Wikipedia editor because you choose to edit anonymously.  Also, please don't take this 31 hour block as a personal attack.  It is simply designed to give you a cool down period.  Because Wikipedia is based on editors collaborating and cooperating with each other; we want to discourage people doing this collaboration by 'reverting', and instead to encourage people to discuss the proposed changes on the talk pages to first find an agreement about proposed edits.  (Also another hint:  If your first experience with Wikipedia is the editing of contentious articles you may find your way here to be frustrating, it can be difficult.  It is recommended that you choose to edit on non-contentious articles if you want a more pleasant experience.)  SaltyBoatr get wet 20:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your concern and message SaltyBoatr get wet. I was unhappy with the way dictatorial editors were sitting on this article for months and refusing to dignify numerous protestations against one false description phrase that they absolutely had to keep in the introduction sentence.  I was unhappy with the fact that they reverted my solution to the problem with no debate whatsoever.  I was unhappy that they deleted my sourced material.  And finally, I was unhappy that I was banned by another editor with no reasoned verdict even though I attempted to defend myself.  I would still like to make a complaint about the behaviour of these editors and the one-sided manner in which this was dealt with, but I most certainly will not be making any more attempts to contribute to Wikipedia. --81.100.215.14 (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Blocked 31 hours for WP:3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 05:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

User:173.55.197.25 reported by User:Ericoides (Result: was blocked shortly after this report for vandalism)
Page: BP 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: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page:

Comments:

The user is also reverting the same un-WP:RS material on Tony Hayward. Ericoides (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC) -->


 * Blocked for 24 hours shortly after this report. Dougweller (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Mk5384 reported by User:Parrot of Doom (Result: Blocked for a brief period)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning :

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article Parrot of Doom's talk page:

Comments:

Basically, removal of cited text and insertion of blatent innaccuracies (such as the studio album numbering, or removing text from the body that is present in the lead, in ignorance of WP:LEAD. I've asked the user to go to the article's talk page and discuss there, but he keeps reverting, and has posted instead on my talk page.  I can easily refute every point he's made since I own copies of the sources used within the article.  Now I'm at the 3RR limit and can do no more.  As things stand, the article is basically incorrect, and is missing several important lines of text that were deleted on nothing more than this user's opinion.  Everything in this article was correctly cited. Parrot of Doom 19:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No edit war at all. I made 3 reverts; no more. POD seems to think that this is they own the article. I explained each edit in a summary. I explained them on the talk page, and I explained them on POD's talk page.Mk5384 (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You appear to be confusing "ownership" with "ensuring the article isn't factually incorrect", and "edit summaries" with "God-given right to have my way". Why was I not surprised by your block log? Parrot of Doom 19:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Further examples of edit warring on this article -, . Editor refuses to accept explanations given on the article's talk page. Parrot of Doom 19:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again; not edit warring. Just correcting it. I've left most of your inaccuracies stand for the time being, but yes, something as easily proven as that I did correct. This does not even belong at ANI, but since it's here I would ask that someone with a thourough knoweledge of this subject take a look at the article, as it is riddled with inaccuracies and opinion.Mk5384 (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Just came here to make the same report, but I see Parrot of Doom has beaten me to it. He's reverted my correction of his inaccuracies twice three times, so if he's reverted POD three times as well, that makes a minimum of five. This isn't a difference of opinion; this article was discussed to death at FAC, and Mk5384 is repeatedly editwarring to move away from a version with an overwhelming consensus. – iride  scent  20:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? Overwhelming consensus? All 2 of you? I have, in fact, corrected your inaccuracy, whilst providing proof.Mk5384 (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Anoter example, now on a different but related article - . Coincidently, we also have an IP editor making this change.  I would also add that this editor appears to be quite animated about this matter. Parrot of Doom 22:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop. Changing an article so that it doesn't read the way you like it is not edit warring. I not only demonstrated that the album order is correct; I even went to WP:ALBUM, per your request for confirmation. Mk5384 (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sure MK will launch into a explosion of fury by my arrival on this tread, but it must be pointed out that this sort of editing behavior has been going on for a very very long time. The user in question quite frequently will pick up on a topic and launch into endless edits in an attempt to get the article to his preferred version.  If others challenge or question MK's views, it is always a conspiracy and always everyone else's fault.  The user has been reported on no-less than three separate administrative noticeboard threads (beginning with this one) and was part of an extensive never-ending debate on Talk:John J. Pershing which the user started, re-started, started again, started a fourth time, in an attempt to get his way.  Now, I am NOT kicking this user when he is down or bringing up closed issues to provoke MK.  I am simply alerting everyone that this current 3RR report is not an isolated incident.  MK needs some serious counseling on this site by people who may be able to get through to him.  He is headed for an eventual indef-ban if attitudes don't change, and needs to begin with maybe admitting some responsibility for his actions. -OberRanks (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's interesting to see that OberRanks has resumed stalking me. Since the debate at Pershing is largely over, he just can't resist coming here, and trying to stir the pot. OberRanks ( a user who was himself, indefed) knows nothing about this situation, or the disruptive editing pratices of Parrot Of Doom, and yet feels qualified to respond here. But I'll just shake my head, and walk away. I will, however, not allow him to continue to tell lies about me ad nauseam, which he's done here, without refuting his perfidious falsehoods. OberRanks- you are a liar.Mk5384 (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As anticipated, this was lies and falsehoods and now there is a desire for "punishment" of those who made "false accusations". The same old story, over and over again. -OberRanks (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, to clarify, MK's WP:NOTTHEM insertions of stating I was indef blocked is a reference to a 2005-2006 dispute of my previous account User:Husnock; my current account OberRanks as never been blocked or banned in any way. MK has done some very deep digging into that former Husnock account (which is now closed and unused) and has brought it up before, usually to deflect the conversation from himself with predictable results.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by OberRanks (talk • contribs) 17:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * And now yet more edit warring, here, and here. Is anyone going to comment on this? Parrot of Doom 14:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * And now a blatant violation of WP:3RR on The Wall, his second (I believe) on this project in less than 24 hours. Parrot of Doom 14:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * – xeno talk 15:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 16:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:69.138.165.244 reported by User:Wildhartlivie (Result: Semi)
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: Talk:The Game (U.S. TV series)

Comments:

If you'll take a look at the article history, you'll see that the reporting party here has been engaged in the same edit war. In between each of those reverts by the IP is an identical revert by Wildhartlivie. I attempted to intervene and discuss with WHL why she objects to the edit (see the article talk page, my talk page, and her talk page) to the point that they require a wholesale revert, but she doesn't seem keen on discussing this. Equazcion ( talk ) 20:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My support of this anonymous user is starting to waiver. They seem to be switching IPs very rapidly, and also seem intent on restoring their exact version, which includes grammar, spelling, and other style errors. Equazcion  ( talk ) 20:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Except I did not violate 3RR, which this IP did after being warned. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)That's because this IP (and various others that are probably the same banned editor) has been doing wholesale reverts of the article for some time now. If you actually check the content they're adding, you would see that they're adding poorly written/sourced content along with content that violates WP:CRYSTAL. In other words, there's more to this than what's on the talk page of the article and what has been going on for the last day.  Pinkadelica ♣  21:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Who is the banned editor? Is there an WP:SPI case open? Have the IPs ever been reported anywhere? Equazcion  ( talk ) 21:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * See Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Equazcion  ( talk ) 21:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you opened a discussion an AN/I, I have responded there. For the record, no, I have not opened an SPI because I only suspect who the user is. I have no proof and fishing expeditions usually don't pan out so I don't like to waste checkusers' time. The user hops from IP to IP and blocking those seem rather futile. Further, the revert/protection thing seem to be working just dandy and IMO, if it ain't broke. If you'd like to go through the channels of getting the IPs blocked for a week or so, feel free. I'd rather have the article protected for a month or so and not worry about for a bit.  Pinkadelica ♣  21:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

As I told wildhartlive, I am not hopping ips. If you could point out specifically what is the problem in my edits. I haved fixed tense errors that I found in the version that was there when i Started. As Equazcion asked wildhartlive, why not work together and incorporate Instead you ust full on rvert. I have been going thru the history and I see that others have tried to edit the article, but wildhartlive and pinkdelica revert. We are all here to work together on the article. What I added is sourced and truthful. wildhartlive does not like my sources. I am still reading WPRS to see if the sources I cite are alright. I asked wildhard to also look for sources, since 2 heads are better than 1. Wildhartlive claims hollywood reported requires membership (but it does not), as a reason for a revert. I am trying, I wish others would also. 69.138.165.244 (talk) 00:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, please go to the trouble of getting usernames correct instead of making it up as you go. Secondly, the diffs are there to establish that you violated 3RR and that is actionable here. There is no need for further discussion of the content. You reverted multiple times to support your version, and the IPs are being dealt with at WP:AN/I. And indeed, Hollywood Reporter redirected to a login page. It requires membership. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

And to add to this, this IP has copy and pasted the warnings to his talk to Talk:The Game (U.S. TV series) multiple times and continued to do so after being warned to stop. See: and then copy and pasted his warnings to my talk page. This has become contentious. Please deal with this IP account. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * Shouldn't you technically already be blocked yourself by now, WHL? ;P Who's closing the threads today?  Backlog city... Doc9871 (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, thank you very much. But it wasn't for lack of trying by Jack Merridew. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Semiprotected two months. Why would IPs with completely different addresses restore the exact same version of the article? IP-hopping editors usually don't get much sympathy here, if they participate in edit wars. If you are truly well-intentioned, create an account, or use a stable IP address. EdJohnston (talk) 01:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)