Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive131

User:NickOrnstein reported by User:SiameseTurtle (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The constant reverting has been based around a decision whether to have the option to sort the table or not. If the table is not able to be sorted, it can only be ranked by date of death. If the table is sortable then the user has the option of sorting by other parameters, such as age. I have tried to resolve the issue and have even tried to get a third opinion on the issue at WP:3O. SiameseTurtle (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

—Eustress talk 00:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Protected two weeks. If consensus is reached on Talk, ask at WP:RFPP for protection to be lifted. Eustress may be on the right track, but the others will have to agree. EdJohnston (talk) 01:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Justin A Kuntz (Result: No action)
Is edit-warring in the Naval Station Rota, Spain article to reintroduce a superfluous picture with a spelling error in its caption. Diffs here:, , &. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.38.32 (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - No action. This report is not in proper form, and the IP seems to have been created only to participate in this war. Socks should not file complaints at noticeboards. User:Justin A Kuntz is on the edge of a block. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

User:174.46.113.209 reported by Uncle Dick (Result: Semi)
. : Time reported: 18:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 17:02, 17 May 2010  (edit summary: "/* Political career */   How long until someone tries to censor this?  An encyclopedia that omits critical facts is worse than worthless.")
 * 2) 17:16, 17 May 2010  (edit summary: "Stating a fact regarding a politician changing a legal bill is NOT vandalism. Removing this fact to hide it from the public IS vandalism and censorship.")
 * 3) 17:27, 17 May 2010  (edit summary: "The change is a hard-core fact and is properly referenced. Reverting the change w/o explaination is clear vandalism, no matter how many cronies do it.")
 * 4) 18:02, 17 May 2010  (edit summary: "Oh I see, you are saying I didn't have ENOUGH reference. OK, here's 10 more. I can add another 100 if you'd like. There: 11 references for one sentence.")
 * 5) 18:10, 17 May 2010  (edit summary: "Making link bot happy")
 * 6) 18:31, 17 May 2010  (edit summary: "Facts, by definition, are NPOV. The position in article is based on current article format (by date). I noticed you removed instead of moved. This is bad faith censorship. Stop working for your boss.")
 * 7) 18:47, 17 May 2010  (edit summary: "Reverting vandalism by Uncle Bill.  I notice they stopped trying to give disingenuous reasons.")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Uncle Dick (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected one month. If the IP will patiently make the case on talk, and get consensus there, the semi can be lifted. So far the IP is up to nine reverts on 17 May. User:Uncle Dick should be more careful about 3RR since it is arguable whether these changes are actually vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Alefbe reported by User:Ahmed shahi (Result: no violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: Editor alefbe showed up immediatly after editor (user:tajik) got blocked and began making wild reverts on several pages all in favor of tajik    which includes removing sources such as Encyclopædia Britannica, Library of Congress Country Studies, ABC News and others, from articles. I also have reasons to believe that alefbe and tajik may be one person Gaming the WP:ISP. Ahmed shahi (talk) 18:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Only 3 reverts, no violation. Dougweller (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So 3 reverts back to back is not a violation? He removes sources and says this: "Alefbe... Difference between 40 and 42 is not important. The important thing is to be loyal to cited sources (such as Iranica)" He's saying the difference between 40 million and 42 million is not importan.Ahmed shahi (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You didn't read what it says at the top of this page? "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period". So no, 3 reverts is not automatically a violation. The rest is a content dispute. I haven't read the diff but I will say that we do need to both use and use correctly cited sources. And reporting him at AIV for violating 3RR after I said no violation is not a good idea. Dougweller (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

User: 89.129.38.32 reported by User:Justin_A_Kuntz (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: File:US Navy 100224-N-7915T-042 U.S. Ambassador to Spain and Andorra Alan D. Solomont talks with Sailors assigned to the Los Angeles-class attack submarine USS Albany (SSN 753) at Naval Station Rota, Spain.jpg is repeatedly removed, edit warring about image sizes and position


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,, and edited after warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I suspect this may well be an IP sock puppet of another user who has followed me from a dispute in another area. I've seen IP edit warring from the same range on Gibraltar. Justin talk 21:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - See previous report of the same dispute. I suggest that Justin remove the 'retired' template from his talk page if he is planning to still participate in edit wars and file complaints here. I take note of Justin's tendency to remove anything posted by others from his talk page. This does not suggest much willingness to negotiate. EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

User:ChrisO reported by User:Momma's Little Helper (Result: Protected)
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:

Chris is claiming a BLP exception, but numerous editors have disputed there is a BLP issue here, and WP:3RR says "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption."
 * I notified ChrisO on his talk page about his 3RR violation and asked him to self-revert. He refused, therefore it seems action is necessary. Breein1007 (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is actively at BLPN and Arbitration Enforcement for violations related to the Israeli/Palestinian case .  AN3 is not the appropriate venue here.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't realize that's how it works. So if someone reports another user at AE and opens a discussion at BLP, it gives them immunity from the brightline WP:3RR rule. Good to know for the future! Thanks as always George. Breein1007 (talk) 00:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not immunity. If uninvolved administrators review and find that the BLP claim is being made in bad faith and is not supported by a reasonable argument, its protection is waived.  However, the BLP and Arbitration Enforcement issues trump normal AN3 issues, yes.
 * Without concluding in a final or overriding sense that he's right, I think Chris' comments in various places about this establish a credible basis for a BLP issue.
 * If the AE consensus is that ChrisO is way off base here he's still liable for his actions. I suggest you pursue it there.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The version that I'm being asked to revert to contains major BLP violations - self-published material and defamatory content. Obviously I'm not going to revert to something that would put me on the wrong side of WP:BLP. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * HJ Mitchell did exactly what I was about to do. I was literally in the middle of typing the protection reason when I went back to the article to confirm this article was about what I thought it was. And bam, there was already a protection template. Basically, I think there's reason to believe the BLP claim is valid, considering the nature of the content that he is reverting (and others are attempting to add). Protection is the wise action here, although I know the editors surrounding the issue here have been involved in other Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles. --  tariq abjotu  00:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be a 3-way tie to the protect button then; I was on the way there as well... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I came here to sort this mess out, so I'm glad to see you;re on to of it! I've protected it for a week to deal with the immediate issue and I may well take further action in the morning, but I'll defer to you if you want to handle it. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob reported by User:Chhe (Result: Two parties warned)]]
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * The warning is given by the user Rrius in his edit summary. Considering though this user's long block history for edit warring and his/her promises to stop I think Off2riorob should know better.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I've been watching this edit war from afar, initially not wanting to get involved, but I felt compelled to do so after having witnessed some of the discussion in the talk page and Off2riorob's subsequent reverts despite this. The user Rrius appears to be cordial as given by this edit in the talk page and seems to want to avoid a edit war as given by the edit summary in this  edit. Off2riorob on the other hand seems to be actively hostile as given by. I'm personally of the opinion that its edit warring when you engage in a bunch of reverts with another editor and then write in the talk page, but avoid an actual civil discussion. This seems to be reflected in Rrius frustration when he/she posted .Off2riorob's reverts coupled with his behavior on the talk page in my opinion constitutes edit warring. I think this user should be either blocked or barred from articles with political themes as this seems to be Off2riorob's main focus when he/she edit wars.Chhe (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Rob was upset and that action here is unwarranted. A block at this point would be punishment (which I understand is not the point of a block) and, in any event, stale. Rob is an important contributor to political articles so a partial ban would be inappropriate and unfortunate. -Rrius (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The last diff is not a revert at all, it was simply a move of text I also initiated discussion on the talkpage. The editor I was involved with here User:Rruis has commented that any action is not appropriate and in the end my position was accepted that the content was weakly cited and was removed from the article by User:Rrius. After this diff, which is the alleged warning(in an edit summary) I did not revert any content again. Off2riorob (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would you move text as in this ? Where in the talk page did you both agree to do this I can't find the diff? And where in the talk page do you both now agree? I've been looking through it and you both seem to still disagree. Could you post diffs.Chhe (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with moving text to a better location? Off2riorob (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Result -- Off2riorob and Rrius are both on thin ice. I recommend that they not continue to revert on this article unless they get talk consensus *first*. Blocks without further warning are possible. EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's sort of an odd "result" when the warnings were issued by the editors to one another during the "war" and all reverting ceased more than 22 hours before this was filed and more than 28 hours before this "result" was posted. The "thin ice" commentary is especially rich in light of that. As discussion began long before either of you entered the picture and has continued since then, it is hard to square this assessment with reality. -Rrius (talk) 05:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Admin comments noted and respected.Off2riorob (talk) 12:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose I just take the admonition at the top of this page to "Use this noticeboard to report recent violations of the three-revert rule, and active edit warriors" (emphasis in original) to preclude listing violations that happened a day earlier and to preclude listing edit wars that ceased a day earlier. And the threat of blocks without warning after a total of five six* reverts and one other relevant edit (I exclude the one where Rob moved the text; that was a perfectly valid edit) seems a tad excessive, as does the "on thin ice bit". I should think that people who had been discussing the issue without reverting each other for a day before this was even posted deserved a little better. Different strokes, I suppose. I simply disagree with Chhe for filing this against Rob in the first place, and EdJohnston for closing (if that's even the right word for it) with such excessive language and warnings. -Rrius (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * * My third was not to the same version as the first two, but to a compromise version (that other relevant edit I mentioned) that was explicitly an attempt to de-escalate. -Rrius (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is just something to learn from. The thing is not to allow such reports from the peanut gallery to be made in the first place. We can both remove them completely from the issue by just taking a little more care, in such circumstances reports are filed when the line has not been stepped over. I have historic with the bringer of this report from a dispute over six moths ago on the lede of the Karl Rove article. Off2riorob (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Gauge00 reported by User:RDBury (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Householder's method

Comments:

This editor is apparently not fluent in English. However edit comments and comments left on the article's talk page have been rude and sarcastic. It seems that despite a consensus from several more experienced editors that the material added is not appropriate, this editor is insisting on restoring the material despite the prevailing opinion.
 * Result - Warned. User is very new, and was not warned about 3RR. He can't keep this up much longer; his attitude is quite unpromising. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am gauge00, as you can see in Talk:Householder's method, I reverted 4th time, however the users that deleted my page completely were Gandalf61, RDBury, R.e.d. savonneux. Of these people, Gandalf61, RDBury, and savonneux are the supporter's of Articles_for_deletion/Methods_of_computing_cubic_roots. They seem they got some bad feeling abou me, and they seam they intentionally followed me, and intentionally deleted my article. I dont think this phenomenon is not just conincidental. How can I solve this problem. As you can noticed, I felt that these three guyes are following me like stokers. (Gauge00 (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)) Revertion reporter was RDBury, and he is also the nominator of the AfD of the Methods_of_computing_cubic_roots.
 * He continued to revert the article after a 3RR warning and further discussion, so Gauge00 is blocked 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 11:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

User:İlknur sevtapli reported by User:Taivo (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous (consensus) version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: as well as in edit summaries

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor in question has refused to accept a consensus version that was arrived at and agreed to by non-aligned editors. Editor in question has a very clear pro-Northern Cyprus POV and is pushing that POV in the article. Two different non-aligned editors have reverted his edits and urged him to discuss on the Talk Page. He made three of his reverts before even going to the Talk Page and the Talk Page discussion was initiated by myself and not the editor in question. Richwales and myself have urged him to seek further comment if he thinks that our NPOV position is inaccurate. He has so far simply continued to add his non-consensus wording. It is clear from his edit history that this editor is a SPA focused on pushing a Northern Cyprus POV. --Taivo (talk) 11:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This edit by an "anon IP" was then signed by the reported editor. The anon IP address has been linked to this banned user who has abused multiple accounts in the past.  That banned user was also apparently a WP:SPA focused on a pro-Northern Cyprus POV.  (Taivo (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC))
 * Editor in question has now reverted a third different editor. (Taivo (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC))


 * And the editor in question replied (on the Northern Cyprus talk page) with ad hominem attacks, rather than make any effort to counter the sock allegation. Richwales (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I advised the editor (on his/her talk page) regarding the sockpuppet allegation and urged him/her to respond here if he/she is not in fact a sock. Richwales (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Blocked indef as a sock of User:Justice Forever. The common usage of the same IP address, 83.66.22.10, between this user and Justice Forever, plus the strong similarity in POV, should be enough evidence. There is no SSP or SPI report that I could find, but see this ANI from Feb. 2008 for the most extensive prior discussion. See also .  For more, scroll the IP's contributions and look at the consistent way he uses upper case in the edit summaries since 2008. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help :) --Taivo (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Ybelov reported by User:Ellol (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:

Comments:

The user created the page about the political event, and attempts to downplay the coverage of a counter-event and the criticism of the event. ellol (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Caveat - the warning was issued post factum. I don't know if the user was aware of the existence of 3RR, he hadn't been particularly active until very recently. Meanwhile, page protection might be in order. Colchicum (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification, however, that can be easily seen from my diffs. And how is that going -- lack of knowledge does not free you from the responsibility, right? ellol (talk) 06:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Warned Ybelov not to include well-known people in the list of petition signers unless this fact is reported by a reliable source. Doing otherwise violates WP:BLP. An online petition, where the identity of participants can't be checked, is clearly open to fake submissions. EdJohnston (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I totally agree that other editors criticism is repeatedly removed from the article. In most of civilized countries if you publish signatures online on official list of anti-government compain it should be verifiable and valid. Only thing that this website collects is full name and email. Anybody can open a free email and sign with a fake name. He disrespect both Russian and American laws of the collecting signatures during political compaign    . This can eventualy create legal issues for Wikipedia also, that why we should be really careful about this article. Innab (talk) 06:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Miesianiacal reported by User:205.250.65.13 (Result: stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 21:30, 9 May (more or less; details below)


 * 1st revert: 12:03, 17 May (reverting to 21:30, 9 May)
 * 2nd revert: 16:41, 17 May (reverting to 12:20, 17 May)
 * 3rd revert: 23:00, 17 May (reverting to 22:35, 17 May)
 * 4th revert: 23:10, 17 May (partially reverting to 23:00, 17 May)

Comments:

The offender edit-wars habitually, and has a very extensive block-log for that under his last user-name, G2bambino, and earlier user-names (their records no longer readily accessible, but "Gbambino", among others).

Aggravating factors are his snippy and accusatory edit-summaries, and talk-page behaviour, also habitual and seen again in this case.

This latest edit-warring and 3rr violation is just one more instance of the broad, deep and long-standing problems with the offender, some appreciation of which be gained from (besides his record of blocks) this RfC on him.

-- 205.250.65.13 (talk) 06:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Tim Song (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Zupfk reported by User: DerGelbeMann (Result: prot 1w)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

The editor delets without any explanation data from the table referring to Name Chronology. At the first 3 reverts he deleted the info added by me and at the 4th revert the whole table (DerGelbeMann (talk) 05:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC))


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

I think that it is vandalism too.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

You are both edit warring in excess of three reverts in any 24 hour period, and I can find very little attempt to work this out through discussion. Both of you, please provide sources at Talk:FC Timişoara and explain why your preferred version is better. Also, please consider using informative edit summaries. Thank you, - 2/0 (cont.) 21:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Jaellee reported by 97.116.18.242 (talk) (Result: no vio)
. : Time reported: 22:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 17:59, 17 May 2010  (edit summary: "article doesn't support category")
 * 2) 16:20, 18 May 2010  (edit summary: "article doesn't support categories")
 * 3) 18:10, 18 May 2010  (edit summary: "please read Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality")
 * 4) 22:02, 18 May 2010  (edit summary: ""Categories should not be based on religion unless the belief has a specific relation to the topic." This is clearly here not the case")

—97.116.18.242 (talk) 22:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose action despite the 3RR violation. There has been no attempt to resolve this on the talk page and User:Jaellee was not given a warning regarding his conduct.  Betty Logan (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Discussion has been taking place at WT:WPF. I have warned Jaellee User talk:97.116.18.242. Sorry for not linking those during the original report. 97.116.18.242 (talk) 00:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Tim Song (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There has been continued edit warring on the article with multiple people reverting. Could something be done about this? 97.116.18.242 (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Tim Song has protected the article for three days. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

User:142.162.75.195 reported by User:DVdm (Result: resolved at talk)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: none by myself on talk page. Edit summaries of myself and others.

Comments:

Forgot to mention: 3 cases of problematic editing (vandalism) today: ,


 * This seems to have resolved itself at articletalk. Please bring it back if anything else arises. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Burbanksalinger reported by User:Dayewalker (Result: 1 week)
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: User was also warned for making the same edits to the article a week ago, all warnings received and blanked on his page. Dayewalker (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Edit warring on a BLP like this is not acceptable. Tim Song (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Flipperwill reported by User:NeilN (Result: 31h )
. : Time reported: 00:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 09:21, 19 May 2010
 * 2) 13:48, 19 May 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 14:56, 19 May 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 00:37, 20 May 2010  (edit summary: "")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User refuses to understand you can't use primary sources in a WP:BLP and insists on calling removal of text "vandalism". -- Neil N   talk to me  00:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether the editor got the proper sequence of prior escalating warnings, but they're on notice, and I just added a note to the talk page that if they want to continue editing they need to acknowledge they won't do it again. They've defiantly rejected attempts to advise them on policy so I think any further discussion should be under the umbrella of a block until and unless they promise to stop, to avoid disruption to the article.  - Wikidemon (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe they did. I added a standard 3RR template at 9:56, they reverted at 10:56, I added an additional warning at 11:06 and they reverted again just now. -- Neil N   talk to me  00:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Tim Song (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Phoenix7777 reported by User:Melonbarmonster2 (Result: stale )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Comments:

Please note that "2nd revert" above is my first "edit". And above "1st revert" is an anti-vandalism revert of unexplained removal of and other text.
 * 1st edit:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Progress of edits.
 * 1) Melon: blanking of sourced contents, and other text.
 * 2) Phoenix: revert.
 * 3) Melon: revert.
 * 4) Phoenix: revert.


 * 1) Melon: blanking of and other text.
 * 2) Phoenix: revert.
 * 3) Melon: revert.
 * 4) Phoenix: revert.


 * 1) Phoenix: added news sources. Related discussion: Talk:Japanese Sea Lion.
 * 2) Melon: revert.
 * 3) Phoenix: revert.
 * 4) Melon: revert.
 * 5) Phoenix: revert:
 * ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Melonbarmonster2 was warned of "atrocious conduct" by administrator User:Future Perfect at Sunrise.
 * User talk:Melonbarmonster2 ,
 * User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise
 * ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 06:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the current account of Melonbarmonster2, the user's former account has numerous block histories.
 * ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * no warring in the past 24 hours. Both breached 3RR, but it's stale enough that I'm not blocking. Tim Song (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You probably didn't notice that my 4th revert was self-reverted.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * no warring in the past 24 hours. Both breached 3RR, but it's stale enough that I'm not blocking. Tim Song (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You probably didn't notice that my 4th revert was self-reverted.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

User:MarkusSchulze reported by Homunq (talk) (Result: prot 1w)
. : Time reported: 16:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 12:51, 15 May 2010  (edit summary: "") and 08:46, 16 May 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 09:54, 16 May 2010  (edit summary: "Removed weasel words: "Some theorists dispute whether this property is desirable."")
 * 3) 10:53, 16 May 2010  (edit summary: "Removed weasel words: "Michael Dummett and others dispute whether this property is desirable." For every criterion, there are people who don't consider this criterion desirable.")

Not a 3RR violation, but shows disposition to continue the same edit war:
 * 1) 09:27, 18 May 2010  (edit summary: "removed original research")


 * Diff of warning: here. Also, the talk page of the article and his talk page show my numerous attempts to resolve the issue through discussion.

Note: this editor is absolutely a positive contributor to the page, on balance. For instance, even in the middle of edit warring on this issue, he made two changes ( 21:42, 16 May 2010 (edit summary: "") and 22:11, 16 May 2010  (edit summary: "") ) which I consider positive contributions. However, it seems that he has taken WP:OWNership of the article (for instance), which is especially a concern, as, based on his user name, he would appear to be Markus Schulze, the inventor of Schulze voting, one of the systems discussed by the page.

Thus, I emphatically do NOT want him banned from the article. I wish this could be resolved through discussion. But he continues edit-warring on this issue, without even once entering into the discussion on the talk page; his one comment there refers to a simultaneous issue on which he's also edit warring, but where he hasn't broken 3RR. I'd prefer it if any sanctions could be the minimum necessary to bring him to participate on the talk page and cease edit-warring on the issue.

As to his last edit summary ("removed original research"), it's not really the issue here, but I will respond to the specific allegation on the article talk. I've revised it with a compromise edit on the unrelated issue, but on the 3RR issue, I've left it intact, to avoid edit warring myself. I'd appreciate any guidance as to how to respond on this issue. I do know Markus Schulze and a number of other editors active on the article in question from an Election Methods mailing list, which includes a broad variety of viewpoints, and if I posted an alert there it would certainly bring plenty of helpful attention to the article (including people who would agree with Schulze, those who'd agree with me, and many who'd agree with neither). I have so far refrained from doing so to avoid the appearance of WP:CANVASsing. (And also because it might lead to somebody breaking the google-anonymity of my username, but that alone would be an acceptable risk to me.)

—Homunq (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * He continues the behavior: and . There are two issues he's edit warring on: the colors of the LNH column in the table on voting systems, where he broke 3RR; and the criteria compliance of Bucklin voting, which these two latest edits address. My response to the latest edits is here. I will not revert these edits, but, since they replace a neutral statement of the absence of sources with his own original research, I would ask an administrator to revert them for me. By my count, on the two issues combined, he's now gone to the same version 10 separate times (that is, 8 flat-out reversions. The 10 are: the four above, the two here, two previous ones on Bucklin voting, and double-counting two which touched both issues), while I have consistently sought compromise versions, restoring a previous version only twice (once because he had made no edit comment to allow a basis for compromise, and once because he'd broken 3RR). Homunq (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oops, I just realized that 3 reverts is not a violation of 3RR, but since one of the reverts came in two parts, he still technically violated it. Also, as noted just above, it is part of a pattern of 10 reversions over a few days. Homunq (talk) 19:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Homunq, your claim, that it was unknown whether Bucklin voting satisfies independence of irrelevant alternatives, is obviously false. See: Arrow's impossibility theorem. Your edits are a clear violation of WP:WEASEL, WP:OR, WP:SOAP, and WP:NONSENSE. Markus Schulze 19:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I already responded to that: you are wrong on 4 separate counts. Anyway, this is the administrators noticeboard for edit warring. Even if I were in violation of all the policies you mention (which I'm not), that would be irrelevant here. I will resist the temptation to list all the irrelevant policies which you're violating. To do so would be to go against the first warning on this page: "Do not continue a dispute on this page". Right here, the only relevant ones are WP:3RR and WP:WAR. Please read my response to the above.
 * Even now, I still don't want to get you banned from the article - but you're really pushing it, and I believe I could make a strong case . Stop. Edit. Warring. And. Use. Talk. Homunq (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Struck out the above on further thought.


 * (Also posted to User talk:MarkusSchulze): Markus, here's a peace offering: can we post a notice of this dispute on the EM list? There are a lot of smart people there, and some of them would certainly be sympathetic to your view of Arrow's Theorem. An informed third party would help us return to productive debate and end the edit warring. If you agree, I'd be happy to let you make the posting, and make it as biased as you like (though of course I'd prefer a neutral statement of the two issues: Bucklin criteria compliance and whether the LNH criterion is uniquely contentious or simply as contentious as other criteria). I would even promise not to respond to your posting, except to identify myself if you desired, no matter how biased I felt your presentation was. Note: If I do reveal my real name over there, which I suspect you could guess anyway, I'd ask you to promise not to post my real name here or my wiki username on the list. Homunq (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I gather "Homunq" has taken his dispute with Markus to a higher level. I posted this at at Voting System talk page and so will post it here as well: "Homunq: I know you hang out in the Internet with people who think FairVote is some evil, manipulative force and that only FairVote might suggest that later-no-harm is a concern, but once you get out more in the real world of working for reform on the ground, all the lovely mathematical theory about finding the compromise candidate, etc, melts away. Imagine approval voting in the Hawaii congressional race right now, for example, with two Democrats who don't like each other splitting the vote, and likely to help elect a Republican who only can earn a plurality. With IRV, it's simple for Democratic voters - you rank your favorite first and probably hold your nose and rank the other Democrat second. With approval, however, backers of those Democrats would be torn -- do I vote for both Democrats, potentially causing the defeat of my favorite choice, or do I bullet vote for just my favorite and in turn risk electing my greater evil, the Republican? You also would see lots of insider whisper campaigns among proponents of one candidate or anotehr to say "don't tell anyone, but yes, just bullet vote for our candidate". This kind of stuff would play out all the time with systems that violate later-no-harm (especially in such a direct way as approval --less so with Condorcet systems, which have their own political baggage of potentially allowing a no-name candidate to defeat better-known rivals simply by being so wishy-washy/unknown that no one ranks that candidate last).
 * Okay, that's just introductory verbiage, but perhaps worth considering as you critique FairVote for its advocacy of the one single winner (in a single election) system that avoids the later-no-harm problem. Turning to the Smallwood case, I think you're wrong,and citing the Landskroener/Solgard article (which is linked from the later-no-harm Wikipedia article, so not too hard to find -- see http://www2.mnbar.org/benchandbar/2002/oct02/voting.htm) addressing Smallwood would be appropriate grounding for suggesting later-no-harm is legitimate. I assume there's some also theoretical writing that addresses it too, but if there isn't, it to me just shows the real limits of such theoretical writing-- great on the math board, lousy in real political life where the science of human psychology matters too.
 * Here's a direct quote from the Smallwood opinion, as cited in the Landskroeer article: "The preferential system [Bucklin voting] directly diminishes the right of an elector to give an effective vote for the candidate of his choice. If he votes for him once, his power to help him is exhausted. If he votes for other candidates he may harm his choice, but cannot help him." Pretty clear to me, and explains in a nutshell why so many voters didn't rank anyone second in Bucklin elections where I've seen results.
 * I know this is a bit testy and you're following proper procedure, but it can be exasperating to argue with people (not you, but others you know well) who are so certain they are right, but NEVER seem to engage with the real reform work of trying to convince policymakers of the value of reform, and instead just plunge into reform opportunities at the last moment to oppose IRV. Certainly if you and others did so, you would realize that later-no-harm is a substantive criterion. RRichie (talk) 11:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Please contact me if you would like assisstance setting up a request for comment or with any other steps of dispute resolution. I have protected the page for one week, which I hope will suffice to work this out. Please use editprotected or request unprotection at my talkpage or at WP:RFPP if matters are settled before then. Thank you, - 2/0 (cont.) 20:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a deeply unsatisfying result to me. I am trying to follow the rules, trying to avoid edit warring, and it gets treated as if it were a symmetrical situation. I'm not going to whine about WP:WRONGVERSION, but I feel that protection is to the detriment of the page. And the whole reason I reported the 3RR violation, as well as bringing the dispute to third opinion and informal mediation, is that I feel that, unless somebody besides me tells him to stop, MarkusSchulze will continue to WP:OWN the page. I don't want him blocked, but I do want him to understand that he must stop such behavior. For instance, I think that a warning about a possible future block would work. Homunq (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The edit war has resumed on Bucklin voting. Apparently, User:MarkusSchulze's appetite for edit warring continues unabated. Twice in 20 minutes, he restored a disputed section with the edit comment "removed original research" (emphasis mine). We need some kind of mediation; the article protection was no solution at all. Homunq (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Homunq, it is well known that Bucklin voting violates independence of irrelevant alternatives. See: Arrow's impossibility theorem. Please stop vandalising. Markus Schulze 23:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * MCA is a form of Bucklin voting. Please stop making identical edits and repeatedly showing your misunderstanding of Arrow's Theorem and discuss this. I am not vandalizing; even if everything else I've said is wrong, my tags are still perfectly valid, as the material is unreferenced. Note that even now I'm refraining from making a WP:POINT by adding such tags to other nearby information which I don't dispute. Homunq (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Repeated violation by User:MarkusSchulze reported by Homunq (talk) (Result: Both parties warned)
. : Time reported: 23:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 23:07, 19 May 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 363097321 by Homunq (talk); removed original research")
 * 2) 23:21, 19 May 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 363098993 by Homunq (talk); removed original research")
 * 3) 23:35, 19 May 2010  (edit summary: "Dear Homunq, your claim, that it is unknown whether Bucklin voting satisfies independence of irrelevant alternatives, is ridiculous. See: Arrow's impossibility theorem.")
 * 4) 23:43, 19 May 2010  (edit summary: "Dear Homunq, your claim, that it is unknown whether Bucklin voting satisfies independence of irrelevant alternatives, is ridiculous. See: Arrow's impossibility theorem.")

He just violated 3RR again. I came pretty close myself, but one of my edits was an honest attempt at compromise, and NOT a reversion to any prior content of the page (I added two tags, to allow the disputed material to stand but note the lack of references, and I was honestly surprised and disappointed when he reverted even that). I'll accept any discipline I get but at this point I am finally asking for him to be banned from these two pages (Voting system and Bucklin voting). That's a pity and I may change my mind when I cool off but I certainly don't see him learning any restraint so far. Homunq (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've warned both parties, and suggested a few things to try, on their respective talk pages. If reverting continues, blocks are possible, but in a two-person revert war, both parties are likely to be sanctioned. So they should cool it. EdJohnston (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * mmmmphpbbltpx! I'm not going to continue the edit war, but rules have certainly been broken already. I believe that one or more blocks are already in order. I understand that that may mean that I am included.
 * There is no clearer violation of 3RR than the above: 4 identical edits in under an hour. My own case (the other half of the above story) is, I believe, not a violation, but that's for you to judge. I am not proud of edits 2 and 4 of my half; I stand fully behind edits 1 and 3. Anyway, I think that the split-the-baby decision in protecting Voting systems without any warning to either of us helped lead to the second violation(s?) above, and I don't think another split-the-baby decision is helpful now. It's time to be firmer. Homunq (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC) (By "split-the-baby" I mean to maintain an appearance of evenhandedness by treating both parties symmetrically even though the situation is not symmetric.)
 * The comment immediately above refers to the short-term situation of editing behaviour, which I believe merits being addressed on its own. As to the content disputes: one of the two content disputes is already effectively resolved (I ceded due to a source cited by RRichie). In order to help resolve the other one, I've asked on my talk page for permission to alert (via user talk and an unbiased email heads-up) what in my opinion is a fair selection of editors who I believe would help attain consensus? I'd of course welcome MarkusSchulze to do the same (and even suspect that he already has emailed RRichie, with which I'm fine). Homunq (talk) 00:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am an optimist (perhaps incurable) about the potential for consensus on content. However, I still consider the most recent 3rr violation(s?) to be unresolved. I do not think it is healthy if my continued willingness to seek consensus results in impunity for rules breakers (including me, if I am judged to be one). Homunq (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Both parties warned. If either one continues to revert on the subject of voting systems, without getting consensus for their changes, they may be blocked. Homunq should get busy trying to organize the discussion that I proposed on his talk page. MarkusSchulze is advised to participate in that discussion and to follow consensus. This report is now closed. EdJohnston (talk) 11:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

User:3bulletproof16 reported by User:Screwball23 (Result: malformed report)
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:

Tim Song (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Pdfpdf reported by User:Binksternet (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 15:01, May 19. Pdfpdf reverted Binksternet.
 * 2nd revert: 23:03, May 19. Pdfpdf reverted Binksternet.
 * 3rd revert: 11:22, May 20. Pdfpdf reverted Raul654.
 * 4th revert: 14:15, May 20. Pdfpdf reverted Raul654.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The issue revolves around whether the notion by Kantarō Suzuki that the Soviets would be amenable to an alliance with Japan in mid-1945 (when the Soviets were preparing to attack) was an unrealistic or fantastic one. Sources support this view, saying it was hallucinatory or foolish; none deny it directly or say it was a solid, realistic idea. Pdfpdf is using edit warring to remake the article for reasons unknown to me. Note that the article is already FA class and has been vetted multiple times by subject-matter experts. Binksternet (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Protected by . Tim Song (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Slrubenstein Edit war reported by User:Hammy64000 (Result: 24H petard)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted from:


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

Diff of edit warring / Edit war warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Hammy64000 has added a great deal of content to this article in a relatively short period of time. Much of it reads like a personal essay, and violates NPOV and NOR by introducing the author'sown argument into the article. Much of it is not directly about the topic, and instead develops an argument about Darwin and sociobiology that is tenuously - if at all - related to patriarchy, and is clearly in violation of NOR. I tried to raise this issue several times with him, but my remarks were dismissed. I recently deleted only that material that was written in essay style, and not directly related to "patriarchy." I explained why in the edit summary and on the talk page. Hammy has placed a warning on my talk page, for making deletions without explanation. he also accuses me of deleting material that was added "by consensus," when he is the ony one who added the material, with no discussion on the talk page. I do not think Wikipedia articles ought to be the place to post personal essays. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, please note that he identifies my first edit as a "reversion." That is not true. i di dnot use the revert or undo function. I deleted only that material I considered in violation of policy, as I explained on the talk page. Hammy apparently does not know what SYNTH is, or ESSAY, or NOR, which is a shame because he violates these policies and guidelines casually. He also apparently does not know what we mean by "consensus" or "revert" although he uses these words liberally. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

Slrubenstein illustrates the problem with his approach. I did not add anything new. Alistair added POV and NPOV material. I let it stay until the arbitration was over and then deleted it. Then Manus put it back--twice. Then he actually looked at it and deleted the table and the "sources" for the table. He acknowleged on the edit history and on the discussion page that Alistair violated Wikipedia policy with this material. The remaining stuff was unsourced and POV, but I tried to discuss it until Slrubenstein jumped in there with both feet. He apparently thinks the new stuff was from me. After he scolded me I re-wrote Alistair's material, deleted things after asking for discussion, and put it in the Biology section as Slrubenstein suggested on the discussion page. After that was done he was still so peevish and rude I still have no idea what it was all about. He is complaining about Darwin but I can't think why. Everything was sourced. Then he swooped in and blanked large parts of the biology and anthropology sections, which he never discussed.Hammy64000 (talk) 23:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that the article was stable for a long time before Alistair's addition. The only reason the Anthropology section was added is because Alistair appeared during a previous ban to add this questionable material and I was trying to ward off more of the same.  It didn't work.  But I got this message on my talk page from someone who remembered the mess this article was in before I worked on it.

Wow. Thanks for cleaning up the patriarchy article. I had tried to implement revisions back when Alastair was dominating it, but I gave up. Nice to see it so... balaced. Maybe my faith in Wikipedia has been restored. Neuromusic (talk) 07:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Hammy64000 (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also I checked and read more books since the arbitration and I think he has deleted some of the new information from these books. They are not irrelevant.  The anthropology text info is the result of Manus' comments to me and neither of them have even spent the time necessary to understand what is really going on with the article.  I think the textbook info may have been deleted too.  I've spent time I don't even want to think about, trying to get this right. Hammy64000 (talk) 01:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Advice left for both editors, Hammy64000 blocked for 24 hours for editwarring WP:SYNTH and a little WP:OWN. Please be more careful to seek consensus and remember there is no deadline. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou reported by User:jheiv (Result: warned, protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kappa_Sigma&diff=363263439&oldid=363259311
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kappa_Sigma&diff=363267147&oldid=363265343
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kappa_Sigma&diff=363270557&oldid=363270015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kappa_Sigma&diff=363268452&oldid=363267892

The entire discussion is here and in the archives: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kappa_Sigma Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kappa_Sigma&diff=363258423&oldid=363257661
 * This is not an example of you "trying to resolve the dispute" at all! You came in and archived the discussion, then deleted all the information.  You were trying to shut down the discussion and declare a consensus (comprised of you and Enos, another Kappa Sigma member) which only inflamed the situation. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, this is not the place for this discussion, but I think the edit history speaks for itself. You continue to add material that has previously been reverted for violating one or more of Wikipedia policies -- for a short list, I added a new section on the talk page.  Unfortunately, I can't remove the unsourced or improperly sourced material from the article but I'm confident it will be cleared up by another editor soon enough.jheiv (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You may know more about Wikipedia than me, but I am also perfectly capable of reading and understand Wikipedia's policies, especially WP:COI. You have labeled information that you want deleted from your fraternity's article as "trivia" or "improperly sourced," even if that information is from the New York Times or a respected university. Until I added those references, the ENTIRE ARTICLE consisted of nothing but references from official Kappa Sigma sources. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

This is a clear WP:SPA whose only reason for having an account is to disrupt and vandalize the article. Many editors have reverted the same edit over time yet he just re-adds it. When editors try to form consensus on the talk page, he ignores it and continues to make whatever edits he feels like. Editors have pointed out policy after policy that his edits violate yet he refuses to change and continues to revert and add the sections.

The editor also continues to edit other people (my) edits on the talk page (disclaimer: they're SPA tags)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kappa_Sigma&diff=363266421&oldid=363265050
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kappa_Sigma&diff=363268786&oldid=363268452
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kappa_Sigma&diff=363268992&oldid=363268983
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kappa_Sigma&diff=363270785&oldid=363270126

It's clear that there is consensus on the talk pages -- but even if there weren't its also clear that his edits violate WP policies. I'm afraid a time out might be the only option (but I'm also afraid that that won't stop him from WP:SOCKing). jheiv (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This is so misleading and dishonest. You have never tried to talk to me or work with me, you only reverted and deleted information about your fraternity.  You have altered AND deleted my comments on the Kappa Sigma talk page, and you refuse to edit in line with Conflict of interest.  I tried to get additional feedback on the Kappa Sigma situation at WP:COIN, but it did not generate much response. You and your fellow Kappa Sigma brothers do not WP:OWN the Kappa Sigma article, and to call a two-year-old discussion (in which four Kappa Sigma members participated) a "consensus" is misleading. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We should not continue the debate here, but to address your statement about trying to work with you:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kappa_Sigma&diff=363264378&oldid=363264163
 * To which, I (unsurprisingly) got this response.
 * You are the only editor who is making these edits -- there are many other editors reverting them -- are they all Kappa Sigmas in some shadowy conspiracy to hide .... their motto!? jheiv (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not just their motto, their religious requirements as well. Also, I am absolutely NOT the only editor who has referenced this information into the article. You say I am the "only" editor, but the subject has come up in previous years, the only difference being that I have recognized and pointed out the WP:COI problem and have not backed down. Say what you will about "shadowy conspiracy," it does not look good when the discussion that you (a Kappa Sigma member) point to as "consensus" is comprised of four Kappa Sigma members.
 * That aside, if I am doing what you call "edit warring," what do you call your constant deleting and reverting? Why is it acceptable for you but not me? The whole thing reeks of the pot calling the kettle black. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * AEKDB warned and the article protected for one week. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Verbal reported by User:Mitsube (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported:

The user returned from a long hiatus, and immediately started combative editing on this and other articles. There is no technical 3RR vio, though he did have a 3RR vio on this very page in October (see the report here), for which the admin forgave him after he apologized.

He first reverted back to a version of his from months ago:


 * 1st revert:

His justification, on the talk, was reviews of the book in the American Journal of Psychiatry, the Journal of Psychosomatic Research, and the Journals of Nervous and Mental Disease constitute "fringe reviews":. This is clearly just an excuse, and not a good faith effort to dialogue or involve himself in constructive editing.

The next reverts were the following day (over a 26 hour period).


 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: This one is different: he performed a "delete by redirect" of the entire article, which he has tried before:.
 * 5th disruptive edit: now having "run out of reverts", the user places three other disruptive tags at the top of the article instead of the notability tag.

In this series of edits, the user performed many reverts, including the highly combative step of a "delete by redirect" of a well-sourced article. He previously violated the 3RR trying to erase the article in this way, in October.

The user is also engaged in combative behavior at another article, where he hasn't even given excuses on the talk page. He ignored my specific request to respond to a point on the talk page in objection to his defacement of the article.

This user generally makes terse statements in wikispeak as the only pretext for his combative and disruptive edits, and has done so again in the last two days. He was allowed to violate the 3RR without sanction before on the grounds that a block would not be preventative of future disruptive editing, but I think his behavior recently shows that only a block would prevent future combative editing. Mitsube (talk) 08:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I was involved this morning in editing this article and agree with the summary which Mitsube has kindly provided. It clearly shows Verbal edit-warring against consensus. Johnfos (talk) 08:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Additionally, User:Verbal demands that other editors present to him exactly how the article meets notability requirements, when the reviews of the book are already listed both on the talk page directly above his request, as well as in the short article. Verbal can see these sources. He knows that they are the sources which render the subject notable. His demand is a stalling tactic and a failure to WP:HEAR. He uses this tactic habitually. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There is clearly a problem with a lot of editors who believe in reincarnation and in particular are credulous believers in reincarnation research keeping a walled garden of articles about the subject. We have articles on every book written on this subject with dubious claims to notability functioning as a smokescreen for an obvious agenda. The main poster of this complaint is one of the major combatants in this area and engages in edit war tactics on a regular basis. I encourage whoever the administrator who considers this complaint to look carefully at the contribution history of User:Mitsube and decide whether a one-sided enforcement is a wise idea. I'll also notice that the other two supporting editors are frequent campaigners in support of the POV-pushing associated with this particular area of articles. Administrator help or article probation for the lot of these articles would be great, I think. Right now it really is running into the wind trying to keep Wikipedia honest about the fact that reincarnation is not considered to be a scientifically reasonable hypothesis within the mainstream academic literature. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * ScienceApologist is entitled to his views, but they just don't accord with the facts. And he hasn't mentioned European Cases of the Reincarnation Type or Verbal once. I just don't see how his comment is relevant to the issue at hand. Johnfos (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Fully protected&#32;for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Work it out on the talk page. Tim Song (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll also notice that the other two supporting editors are frequent campaigners in support of the POV-pushing associated with this particular area of articles. 
 * A false claim. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Nutriveg reported by User:ThaddeusB (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:  (Note the relevant section for the EW is "Uranium exchange")


 * 1st revert: . reverted addition of material by a couple editors, including Lihaas as "unreliable".
 * 2nd revert: . reverted similar material added by different editor for same reasons.
 * 3rd revert: . Reverted Evenfiel's restoration of material.
 * 4th revert: . Reverts Evenfiel again claiming "actions of single editor" even though 3 are involved against his perfered version so far
 * 5th revert: Blind reverts Evenfiel's attempt at compromise
 * 6th revert: Blind revert Lihaas' attempt at a new version as "same unreliable sources"
 * 7th revert: My attention is drawn to the article; I see the edit war and the RS noticeboard post that has told Nutriveg al Jezeera is indeed a RS.  I am quickly reverted.
 * 8th revert: I attempt to make a compromise version, not using the disputed (Iranian) source and am blind reverted
 * 9th revert: Sa.vakilian attempts to move some material into a subarticle to pacify Nutriveg.  Nutriveg claims he is moving material to that article, but since he is about to redirect that article, he is really just deleting material he doesn't like (again).
 * 10th revert: Nutriveg blind reverts my re-addition of the material he removed calling it "problematic" and against consensus even though by now about 8 editors have taken the other side, and none have taken his side (completely).

(added after initial report)
 * 11th revert: Nutriveg reverts again based on a bizarre interpretation of consensus saying everyone except for one person agreed with him on RS noticeboard.  Only two comments existed at the time - Neither comment backed his position.  One said Al Jazeera was generally reliable and the other said it wouldn't hurt to add an additional source.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Attempt to resolve dispute:
 * - Evenfiel & Lihaas on Nutriveg's talk page
 * several editors on article's talk page.

Comments:

Clearly what is going on here is that Nutriveg wants to censor the information for some reason, and is just making excuses for his actions. I would block him myself, but since I am nominally involved from my attempts to end the cycle of reverts, I am bringing it here. If I had realised the extent of reverts earlier, I would have taken more prompt action. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You clearly should block yourself by making provocative actions of making the same unconsensual change several times and other provocative edits instead of addressing the problems with that edit reported in the talk page, that uses questionable sources like Al-Manar and Al Jazeera.
 * You are the one seeking administrative action by using threats here and on my talk page, while you only edited the article talk page only once to discuss the issue before you created this issue in the noticeboard. --Nutriveg (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, as I have already explained to you two or three times, there is a huge difference between making different edits and blind reverting. I've made at least three attempts to improve the text to something you would find acceptable, and you have blind reverted every time.  Also, you are the one and only person who has removed the material, everyone else has added it.  The outsiders have either said the sourcing is perfectly OK or said it wouldn't hurt to add another source.  No one has 100% supported your view in action or word.--ThaddeusB (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. The fact that you managed to chase away the good faith editors through your aggressive behavior doesn't mean their opinions about the article no longer count. I only became involved in the dispute because of your repeated reverts and will not stand for you bullying your way into your preferred version. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Protected 3 days, instead of blocking every single person who breached 3RR. Tim Song (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

User is using his administrator status to continue to edit that problematic text despite of the article protection.--Nutriveg (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nutriveg, please read the policy before making baseless accusations. The edit merely removed a duplicate sentence; it did not change the text's meaning in any way.  Furthermore, you yourself complained about that very duplication.  As such, I can only conclude that your desire is to play games, not improve the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

User is stalking me making provocative edits in articles I usually edit but he never did.--Nutriveg (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This accusation is both baseless, and way off topic for this page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

He continues to do so and ignored my warnings. But I will not play his game as he is trying to create disputes in other articles I usually edit. If no action is taken I will escalate the problem.--Nutriveg (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The perceived stalking is entirely in your head. I happened to notice a problem with ONE article while looking at your contribs and addressed it.  (I do this all the time from a wide variety of editors contribs, incidentally.) That is all there is to the situation.

--ThaddeusB (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as "playing games" goes, it was you who reverted a perfectly legimate edit just because you didn't like me editing "your article" --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, reverting me even on article talk pages.--Nutriveg (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep, I removed your off-topic personal attack from the article talk page. Did you really need a third venue to falsely accuse me of stalking you? --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, since no one answered I created this discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎ maybe a more appropriate place since this issue has gone beyond a content dispute.--Nutriveg (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Hans Adler reported by User:Hans Adler (Result: 1 minute)
Page:

User being reported:

No diffs, since I am reporting myself and going to bed now. I am edit warring against two admins and now also one editor (Cptnono) with a strongly negative opinion about Sea Shepherd, who is the one major contributor to the Sea Shepherd article. They are insisting on keeping a category on the article that incorrectly categorises the act committed by two named living people as terrorism. I have been edit warring against them per BLP, more precisely WP:GRAPEVINE, and am reporting myself because I expect to be reported by one of them while I am asleep. The main discussion should probably be at WP:ANI now. Long-term discussion is at WP:BLP/N, where all uninvolved parties say the act was not terrorism. Hans Adler 01:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Very honest. Blocked for 1 minute for 3RR violation. Now go and sort the content dispute out elsewhere, and if that can't be achieved, in an equal spirit of honesty come back here to be blocked for the remaining 23 hours and 59 minutes. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What is your rationale for blocking a user who was merely preventing a BLP violation?
 * What is your excuse for the deceptive block summary "Disruptive editing"? Hans Adler 02:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * To be completely fair, whether or not the application of the category is a BLP violation is one of the unresolved questions in the dispute, so it's not a terribly clear-cut case. When there is not 100% certainty if GRAPEVINE applies, then it's probably not a good idea to rely on it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously claiming it's not clear whether claiming that two named people committed terrorism is covered by GRAPEVINE? Seriously? Hans Adler 02:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You should be happy you only received a one minute block. As explained to you by more than one editor several times: Yes, some of us do not see this as a concern BLP wise. You are being disruptive so please stop. Cptnono (talk) 02:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To respond, I am seriously claiming (as you well know, or should well know by now since it has been the subject of much discussion elsewhere) that it's not clear if applying a category called to an article about a sinking of a boat necessarily implicates BLP in this case. This is what a huge portion of the debate has been about, and there have been views shared on each side, so I'm not sure why this would be news to you. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I have protected the article for a week. Given the recent history and trends with BLP, it is very difficult to understand how established editors could believe it is appropriate to repeatedly insert a category entitled "terrorism" while the matter is being discussed at the BLP noticeboard.

I am also concerned about the one-minute block. The proper response to the AN3 warning would have been to protect the page (which was not done until now). &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Hans Alder reported by User:Cptnono (Result: redundant with above)

 * Redundant with above; see also AN/I, BLP/N, &c. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Neutralhomer reported by User:Necrat (Result: novio, mediation)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: (Note: I was not logged in, however that is my IP address, I had forgotten my log in at the time.)
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:

The user Neutralhomer reverts edits to provide information which is incorrect, despite having factual information regarding the changes posted on his user talk page. He also flags then as vandalisim, when clearly they were correcting incorrect information, and not vandalisimg.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: As well as on user's talk page: And my talk page

Comments:


 * Necrat or his IP sock were reverted for changing information (long on the page) to just as unsourced information (yes, I admit my information is unsourced). I asked them kindly to provide sources, they said that they were using their knowledge as an engineer, that is OR.  I reverted to the best possible version of the page, even removing it partially to remove some problems.  This did no good.  None of the reverts were in a 24 hour period and all could be considered vandalism. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 13:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The user is out of control, flagging information as vandalisim despite being given proof. I have provided factual links backing my information as accurate and correct, as shown on his talk page, and as stated by a 3rd user who made one edit in the middle of this.


 * This dispute could have used a great deal more WP:CALM and discussion at articletalk, but the 3RR bright line was not crossed even counting IP addresses. I think Requests for mediation/WABC (AM) is a good place to deal with this rather than blocking and locking. Please, both of you, discuss there or at articletalk in good faith and wait for consensus instead of edit warring. Thank you, - 2/0 (cont.) 15:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be good to do mediation, however, "neutralhomer" refuses to enter mediation. I am done with the whole matter, Im done with Neutralhomer, and wikipedia in general. Sorry but this is rediculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Necrat (talk • contribs) 18:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

User:83.146.15.87 reported by User:Quantpole (Result: semiprotected)
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: As detailed on the talk page the IP has insisted on inserting a section regarding homeopathy into this BLP, which is sourced to a mixture of primary sources and unreliable sources such as blogs. Despite explaining the problems with the sourcing and that they need consensus for such material to be included they continue to edit war about this content. I am aware that I have gone over 3RR on this but believe it necessary due to the content and sources used (such as a blog post talking about people being on a "stupid list". If I could have handled this better please let me know. Quantpole (talk) 12:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The page was semiprotected already; I was going to do the same thing. So this report can be considered closed. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 16:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I was asked to comment her as the admin who semi'd it. I think that's the best result, especially considering the subject is now in the headlines. That should be the end of the matter hopefully. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

User:75.37.181.231 reported by User:Supertouch (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

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

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

Comments:


 * Article protected by User:JzG, closing this. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Tallicfan20 reported by TFD (talk) (Result: Self-revert)
Page:. User being reported: : Time reported: 22:50, 21 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) 09:04, 21 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "false "citing," and this theory is prominent only on the fringe left")
 * 2) 16:58, 21 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "not reliable sources, sorry you hate America")


 * Diff of warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This article is subject to a 1RR restriction. With my warning on the user's talk page, I requested that they self-revert and discuss on the talk page. However they have ignored the message and as can be seen from their edit history have continued to edit other articles. TFD (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I left the user an even more explicit warning about the 1RR. If they won't self-revert, I think a block is in order. That's how 1RRs are supposed to work. I agree that he has continued to edit past 20:56 UTC which is when The Four Deuces notified him the first time. EdJohnston (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine, I self reverted, but I still think there should be more reliable, not just sources, when leveling a charge like this at America. It is not even popular mainstream historyTallicfan20 (talk) 01:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - No action, due to the self-revert. EdJohnston (talk) 04:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

User:76.191.236.182 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: 3-day semi-protection )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 00:19, May 19, 2010
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 05:52, May 20, 2010
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 18:59, May 20, 2010
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 21:08, May 20, 2010
 * 5th revert: Revision as of 21:24, May 20, 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I get the impression that a modern-day performance artist is attempting to bolster his stage persona by creating a hoax. I would be delighted to find that I am wrong, but there is no reliable source I can find on the web describing any sort of Maxfield Rubbish, trainer of fleas, from the 1930s. Binksternet (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the report is now slightly stale for a block to be more than punitive, so at the moment I have protected the page for three days. SGGH ping! 10:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

User:TreasuryTag reported by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Removing a fair use dispute tag and the comments contained it it is unethical during a debate. Deleter's arguments are that it can only be used to dispute a speedy deletion, but the tag and the document page only mention using it for any "fair use dispute". There is no mention of "speedy" at all in the tag or its document page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - No violation. It takes four reverts to violate WP:3RR. Suggest you open a discussion on the user's talk page and not just rebuke him in your edit summaries, or (as in this case) leave him an unsigned 3RR warning. As you say, it is unclear under policy whether your template is correctly placed, so it just falls under conventional 3RR if it is removed or added too many times. Please don't either of you revert again, because the next admin may feel compelled to block you under the 3RR rules. EdJohnston (talk) 23:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, Ed. Personally, I can't begin to imagine why RAN1958 filed a bogus 3RR report against me, when I so clearly did not violate it, but it's probably because he's disruptive, eh. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Not-content  ─╢ 07:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Furtive admirer reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Editor blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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


 * and now, for good measure, subsequent to notification of this report:


 * 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

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

Comments:

I'm aware the four five reverts did not take place within a 24-hour period and am invoking the "spirit" of the rule, as it is clear that the editor with a history of edit-warring and blocks is adding contentious (and mostly off-topic) material to a BLP without consensus. Also taking place on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories; editor clearly has an agenda. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This has been resolved - the editor has been blocked indefinitely for systemic violations of WP:BLP. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Ledenierhomme reported by user:Australisian (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user has a history of edit warring judging by their talk page Australisian (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I see no evidence that you attempted to resolve the dispute. All you did was post a message on the talk page demanding that he stop seven minutes prior to posting this report. You gave him so no time to respond, you haven't pointed him toward your message, and he has not reverted in the interim. If, however, after his... say... third revert, you posted a message on the talk page trying to talk to him, but he continued to revert several times after that, ignoring your comment along the way, I certainly would have blocked him. But that's not what happened here. Normally, with two editors edit-warring with each other like this, I would have blocked you both, but I get the impression you might have been able to demonstrate he was being the more disruptive party if you had tried. So, instead, accommodating your laziness, I'll just protect the page. --  tariq abjotu  20:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Cal Jam II "AGAIN" (Result: Semi)


I/we/you, have been through this all before. Here are all the links I could come up with in a short time. The subject article is California Jam II. The same editor is (no using an IP) User talk:173.76.45.12. At the time of the previous incident the name used was User talk:Peterm4589. And still my question is 1). Who are these people ? 2). What's the relevancy of them being there and how they got there ? This same editor was warned not to repeat these edits a few month's ago by this same method and has since returned and continued. please contact if you need further. I already have notified the editor of this report (if he/she continued) and since he/she has I will make an official notification now. Thank you.
 * Comment:
 * Today's revert
 * The last time we went through this
 * Diff 1
 * Diff 2
 * Diff 3
 * Report diff 1
 * Report diff 2
 * Report diff 3 (typo)
 * Report diff 4
 * Archive Search, editor warned
 * Found discussion (under different name)

And here is my contact with this editor today, After I made my revert User talk:Mlpearc and from their talk User talk:173.76.45.12 And here is my contact with this editor today, After I made my revert User talk:Mlpearc and from their talk User talk:173.76.45.12

Mlpearc  pull my chain   Trib's  04:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Reply to notification from editor User talk:173.76.45.12 Mlpearc  pull my chain   Trib's  05:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Google searches for said bus riders to concert:

Mlpearc  pull my chain   Trib's  01:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Google Search for Peter Marchesi
 * Google Search for Bob Millard
 * Google Search for Arbie Girard
 * Result - Semiprotected. The named edit warrior, Peterm4589, has not been active since March. Report again if he comes back. EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

User:209.244.42.198 reported by User:Jonny2x4 (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported: He has also used the following IP addresses:

Previous version reverted to: Here


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

I seriously have no idea why he keeps reverting to that particular version of the article, but I guessing it has something to do with the weasel statements on the lead section, as well as "Legacy" section that was arguably filled with original research. Either way, he provides no rationale why he prefers that version and has gone as far as to revert another user's legitimate contribution to the article as well.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

As you can see, I have try to discuss things with the user. He makes no attempt to give me a justification and simply goes back to reverting my changes. Please resolve this matter as soon as possible Jonny2x4 (talk) 02:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Protected one month. I notice that semiprotection was already tried, but I see no attempt to discuss the current issues on the talk page, by Jonny2x4 or anyone else. Please try to reach agreement on the disputed items. Ask for unprotection at WP:RFPP if this happens. EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! While I'll admit I did not try to attempt to resolve the issue on the article's talk page and I apologize for that, but I left a message on the anonymous user's talk page to try settling things and he obviously choose to ignore me and revert back to his prefer version of the article. I'll create a topic on the talk page and sent a message to the other user, but I seriously doubt I will get a respond from the user judging by past experiences. It seems the user has a history of uncooperative behavior with other editors as well. Jonny2x4 (talk) 06:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Rom rulz424 reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: Protected)
. : Time reported: 03:27, 23 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) 10:01, 21 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Inclusion of Major Intersections and Towns (including duplex of NHR20 in Wagga Wagga in this new section)")
 * 2) 10:02, 21 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Major Intersections and Towns */")
 * 3) 04:35, 22 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 363363826 by Bidgee (talk) This is done throughout all of the highways currently done in Victoria / NSW.")
 * 4) 04:37, 22 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Revised total distance of Olympic Highway. Plus, my POV may be from Wiki, however it is conclusive that there are no complaints on other highway pages (that include MI&T) of Australia.")
 * 5) 04:39, 22 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "The length of the Olympic Highway is 318km (not 338km - that is the distance between Cowra and Albury).")
 * 6) 04:56, 22 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 363502471 by Bidgee (talk) The length of the highway as you claim is incorrect.")
 * 7) 03:20, 23 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 363505364 by Bidgee (talk) Have corrected the distance of the highway, retained the duplex of NR20 at Wagga, and source of MI&T inc")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Bidgee (talk) 03:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're both edit-warring. --  tariq abjotu  16:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

User:92.37.172.117 reported by User:Wildhartlivie (Result: Semi)
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: [Talk:Cher]

Comments:

While I realize that technically, the IP editor waited to revert the 4th time after I posted the warning to his talk page, he still has violated 3RR in spirit, if not in the time frame. This editor has persisted in blanket reverting the content to this page even after I tried to discuss this with him on the article talk page. The editor claimed that charitable organizations that Cher has been directly involved in aren't valid (despite the fact she helped start one of them) and insists on cutting out a preponderance of labels where she has recorded and keeps cutting the genres of music she has done (including the disco era music which helped revitalize her career and basically jumpstarted it). He used the rationale of "I guided by what is relevant to Cher" while cutting mention of labels, genres, associated acts, etc. I tried to discuss it and he would say he agreed with different points I made but would still revert wholesale and completely disgregarded anything discussed. This has happened 9 or 10 times in the last week and his reverting has escalated the last 24 hours or so. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If he hasn't technically violated 3RR you'd be better off getting it semi-protected for a week. That would stop the IP edits for a while and then the editor would have no option but to try and resolve it on the talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 07:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Semiprotected, due to long-term warring by a dynamic IP. EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Julius Sahara reported by User:ScottPAnderson (Result: Protected )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mau_Mau_Uprising&oldid=363747378]


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Persistent unconstructive reverts of Page Move. Julius is not only reverting the page move and title - but also refusing to discuss or support his reasons. He has ignored constructive arbitration by a neutral editor (pls see talk page) - and unilaterally imposed his will on the matter, implementing his understanding of the wikipedia policy in an extreme and unreasonable manner. Please help. Now the incorrect age name has been frozen by an admin.

ScottPAnderson (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * by . Tiptoety  talk 17:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Ramdrake and User:88.147.29.155 reported by User:Captain Occam (Result: Various)
Page:

User being reported: and

Version reverted to by Ramdrake: and

Version reverted to by 88.147.29.155:

Reverts from Ramdrake: Reverts from 88.147.29.155:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 1nd revert:
 * 2rd revert:
 * 3th revert:
 * 4th revert:

Link of edit warring/3RR warning: here for Ramdrake; I don't think the IP has been warned yet.

Link of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Race_and_intelligence

Comments:

Both Ramdrake and this IP are engaged in an intense edit war over the article, which has involved them reverting it five and four times respectively in the past 14 hours. I've made a suggestion about a possible compromise between them on the article talk page (linked above), but am being ignored by both edit warriors. As can also be seen from the talk page, neither of them has put forth any real effort towards resolving this dispute there, despite efforts from other users to mediate it. None of the other users involved in this article are being disruptive, so I don’t think page protection is necessary here; something just needs to be done to stop the edit war between these two. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I've stopped reverting. However, I was only trying to get the IP to discuss his changes on the talk page, as there was consensus that his edits were erroneous (factually incorrect), therefore they should be removed in the interest of the project (many such erroneous edits of his still stand -- but I won't touch them now).--Ramdrake (talk) 06:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) I counted five reverts by the IP as he tried to readd the disputed material The material is from a questionable primary source and is undue. I reverted one of the IPs edits. The fourth diff given for Ramdrake has nothing to do with the material being added by the IP. So I count 5 reverts of the material by the IP and 4 reverts by Ramdrake. The IP's content is still in the article. He edited for one day and has added problematic material to the article. He left 2 comments on the talk page, the second quite odd. .  "Lieberman is absolutely note a rationalist, he is a marxist. Hundreds of studies have clearly demonstrated that the cranial capacity of blacks was smaller, their pelvis is smaller and the cranial capacity is less than the third week of pregnancy! It should not include Lieberman is an obscurantist who denies the very foundations of the theory of évolution."  [Note the azerty keyboard.] The person he's talking about is the late anthropologist and sociologist Leonard Lieberman. As far as I know he's not a Marxist.Mathsci (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - I warned Ramdrake and another admin has blocked the IP. Be aware that 'trying to get the IP to discuss his changes' is not among the exemptions listed at WP:3RR, and another admin could have blocked both parties. EdJohnston (talk) 12:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Ottre reported by User:Lester (Result: 24 hours by User:Orderinchaos )
Page:

User being reported:

User:Ottre has been blanking the following text:

"In his first Budget reply speech as Opposition Leader, Abbott sought to portray the Rudd Government's third budget as a "tax and spend" budget and promised to fight the election on the new mining "super-profits" tax proposed by Rudd."


 * 1st Revert Revision as of 08:45, 23 May 2010 (the disputed text is a fair way down the page, you may have to word search to find it.
 * 2nd Revert  Revision as of 02:52, 24 May 2010
 * 3rd Revert Revision as of 03:37, 24 May 2010
 * 4th Revert Revision as of 06:48, 24 May 2010

Through this period, User:Ottre has been sending other editors warnings to stop editing or they face 3RR. Example, on User:Lester's talk page (down the very bottom), and also to User:Merbabu in the edit summary of the 4th revert.

Link to article talk page... Talk:Tony_Abbott ...where all other editors have tried to resolve the issue with User:Ottre. If you view the article edit history, you can see Ottre's edit war over this particular text has been going on for days, and the 4 diffs presented above are only the most recent of many. He's warring against numerous other editors.

Comments:


 * User:Orderinchaos has blocked for 24 hours. SGGH ping! 11:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

User:138.38.32.168 reported by Shrewsagain (Result: Semi)
. : Time reported: 15:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 15:51, 23 May 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 15:51, 23 May 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 16:03, 23 May 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 16:38, 23 May 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 07:23, 24 May 2010  (edit summary: "/* Biology A-Level controversy */")

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I have attempted to edit this section of the Assessment and Qualifications Alliance but someone keeps reverting these without justification. A page devoted to this topic on its own was deleted from Wikipedia but this deletion is being circumvented by putting the content within another page. The vandalism of my edits is being carried out by several very similar IP addresses: 138.38.32.168, 138.38.32.167, 138.38.32.169, 138.38.32.170, 138.38.32.172. I've posted coments on the talk pages of several of thes users and on the discussion page of the article itself. I've written detailed justifications for the edits I've made and feel that the section should either be removed or left as a brief account of what happened. Shrewsagain (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Semiprotected. Edit-warring by a dynamic IP who does not participate in, or respect, the discussion on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Cimicifugia reported by User:Bali ultimate (Result: 30 hours)
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:

This is basically a guy pushing the Truth. Note the edit summaries and his behavior elsewhere. It's not just this article. He's also starting to canvass, .Bali ultimate (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * --  tariq abjotu  23:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Ink Falls reported by User:Blaxthos (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 08:16


 * 1st revert: 19:59 23 May
 * 2nd revert: 20:19 23 May
 * 3rd revert: 21:54 23 May
 * 4th revert: 22:12 23 May
 * 5th revert: 22:25 23 May
 * 6th revert: 22:41 23 May


 * Additional POV-ness (offtopic, but a great example of why he's edit warring)
 * Clear defamation & personal attack: It doesn't tell us anything about Keith other then he's a douche who makes his career out of attacking others who don't even attack back.

Comments:

While each "version" only appears 3 times, with 6 reverts in a little over 2 hours it's very clear that:
 * 1) This editor has no regard for WP:3RR.
 * 2) This editor is here pushing his POV. See the content, as well as the edit summaries.
 * 3) This editor has no intent of seeking consensus, and would prefer to edit war.

/Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Blaxthos - While revisions don't all relate to the exact same material, this appears to be very aggressive editting against the objections of multiple editors. Suggest temporary topic ban. NickCT (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Some of those edits I did before I got any objection. I only actually reverted my edits three times(I got the Three Revert edit warning and stopped) since then I had made different edits to the article which have nothing to do what was being reverted and which havn't been undone because others have acknowledged that they were the correct edit to make. In short I have made any edits since yesterday, only three reverts have I made thus not breaking the 3revert rule, and I have resigned myself to discussing things on the talk page. This is just a cheap ploy to get me banned from discussing things on the talk page, I havn't made any edits since yesterday, and am clearly not edit warring(as you can tell if you look at my edits). Ink Falls   22:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Here's a break down of my edits:
 * 1st revert: 19:59 23 May Noticed the wording of the article didn't make logical since, they call it a "feud" when O'reilly(as the article states) has never mentioned Olbermann on his program and the whole "rivalry" doesn't appear to be acknowledged by O'reilly at all.
 * 2nd revert: 20:19 23 May revert of first edit
 * 3rd revert: 21:54 23 May since talk page seemed to want to call it a feud I said, "Well then let's at least include the reply Fox News has given to the "feud" and copy and pasted the reply the same article gave.
 * 4th revert: 22:12 23 May revert
 * 5th revert: 22:25 23 May editors complain that segment I added was too large of a monologue, so I compromised and shortened it to a few sentence fragments.
 * 6th revert: 22:41 23 May a newer editor incorrectly changed a sentence from saying "O'Reilly has rarely, if ever, mentioned Olbermann's name on the air" to "O'Reilly avoids mentioning Olbermann's name on the air", because the source says "he has apparently never mentioned Mr. Olbermann’s name", and no one has reverted this edit of mine because it was the correct edit to make.

In short I have made only 2 direct reverts, I have changed the types of edits based off what I have heard on the talk page and have not continued to make anymore edits until I get a responses(note I made those reverts because people were reverting my edits without stating why on the talk page(I started a section) but rather instead making comments like "Careful your POV is showing" or "This is a useless, meaningless edit"). I only use reverts when people are reverting my edits without posting a reason why. Since there has been an ongoing discussion I have not made any reverts since yesterday. Ink Falls   22:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * So, instead of taking responsibility for (1) egregious POV-based edit warring, and (2) a clear attack on the subject of the article, you now come here and assert that the report is a "cheap ploy"? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is a cheap ploy, why not just discuss things with me in the discussion instead of trying to get me banned? Nothing I have edited could ever be consider "egregious POV", I gave my reasons for making the edits, if you disagree with them then that's fine but come up with a good reason don't just say "Its POV but I disagree with it". Ink Falls   22:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: Dayewalker posted this on my talk page "Just letting you know, you're at WP:3RR on Keith Olbermann. Please don't edit war, and continue the discussion on the talk page. Thanks! " Since then I have only made one edit (#6) and it was completely justified. Ink Falls   22:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * . I didn't block him for the edit-warring -- he's clearly taken a break and taken matters to the talk page -- but his POV/agenda-pushing is impossible to ignore and is not at all useful to the article. --  tariq abjotu  23:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

User:94.2.134.76 reported by User:Mo ainm (Result: Already semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Seems likely to be related to, they started edit warring immediately after that IP received a 3RR warning.


 * Semi-protected by . CIreland (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Deshabhakta reported by User:Viplovecomm (Result: Already fully-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [Publicly slanting a major political party' [] same thing is done again' [] and again the same thing happens' [] Reverting the same thing again' []]


 * 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]

Sir this user is not giving us a democratic space to write, he has a history of 3R's, if you want to ensure then visit his talk page, you will get enough reasons to detain him:


 * by . CIreland (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

User:83.59.244.54 reported by User:Labattblueboy (Result: Already semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:


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


 * 1st warning issued on user talk page:
 * 2nd warning issued on user talk page:
 * 3rd warning issued on user talk page:
 * 4th warning issued on user talk page:
 * 5th warning issued on user talk page:

Comments:

User continues to reinsert same text into the article.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Semi-protected by . CIreland (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Mathsci reported by User:Captain Occam (Result: No action, page semi'd)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: and


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert: (the same change as in the fourth revert, made after this report was posted)
 * 6th revert: (revert of unhelpful material, but this is still six reverts in 24 hours.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

This editor has had a confrontational editing style, and a harassing attitude towards me in particular, for quite a while. One example of this is his constant posting of warnings in my user talk (two today, three in the past week; seven of the eight most recent edits to my user talk are from him), including his most recent comment there accusing me of edit warring for reverting the article twice after he'd already violated 3RR on it. He also has a history of making personal attacks against me and anyone else who disagrees with him; there are too many of these to list, but the most significant of them is accusing me of being a holocaust denier. (Which is false and completely unsupported.)

His confrontational attitude has ramped up recently, as can be seen from his recent contributions (things like two separate warnings on my userpage that are only a few minutes apart, and asking why I hadn't yet replied to a comment he'd left only eight minutes earlier.) I think some sort of time-out for him would be really beneficial to everyone involved in this article. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I see three reverts, not four. This is another attempted misrepresentation by Occam. The 4th diff is not a revert, unfortunately for Occam. So 3RR was not broken. On the other hand the OP was adding diagrams not related to IQ tests (they were SAT tests) plus a diagram that broke WP:RS as it is a diagram from data in a disputed book. Occam is a WP:SPA who is involved in WP:CPUSH. He is abusing this page. On the other hand Race and intelligence has been significantly changed today by me trying to restore WP:NPOV. Occam has a very bad namespace editing record on WP. That is not true of me and in this case the images being added were clearly undue and designed to make a WP:POINT. The new neutral version of the article which he obviously doesn't like is here:  It took about four hours to prepare off-wiki. These changes to neutrality and a normally written wikipedia article obviously have not gone down too well with Occam. They are neutral but do not support his won extreme point of view. Hence his forum shopping here. Mathsci (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure if this is helpful or not but this is actually a classic case of a disruptive SPA, seeking to skew the POV of the article on Race and Intelligence toward giving undue prominence to fringe material. Got to say I'm impressed that Mathsci has not lost it, given the constant provocation.  This is a frivolous report that should be thrown out and the originator blocked per WP:PETARD.  Justin talk 18:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you look at the evidence I’ve provided, you’ll see that Mathsci’s comments have very little relation to reality. The SAT score information was added by R.O.C., not me.  And the fourth revert linked here was deleting three paragraphs of text from the article, reverting my adding it back after the first time he’d removed it.  Justin, I’m not sure what you’re talking about here, but please try to look at Mathsci’s behavior objectively.  He’s making blatantly false claims in this thread about what changes I’ve made to the article; he’s editing the body of someone else’s AN3 report; and he’s now reverted the article a fifth time and a sixth time after this report was posted.
 * If you look at the evidence I’ve provided, you’ll see that Mathsci’s comments have very little relation to reality. The SAT score information was added by R.O.C., not me.  And the fourth revert linked here was deleting three paragraphs of text from the article, reverting my adding it back after the first time he’d removed it.  Justin, I’m not sure what you’re talking about here, but please try to look at Mathsci’s behavior objectively.  He’s making blatantly false claims in this thread about what changes I’ve made to the article; he’s editing the body of someone else’s AN3 report; and he’s now reverted the article a fifth time and a sixth time after this report was posted.


 * I’m not violating any policies here at all, and haven’t since January. Is it appropriate for this report to be judged based on anyone’s agreement or disagreement with the material that Mathsci is edit warring over, rather than who is and isn’t violating WP policy here?  And even if you think Mathsci’s preferred version of the article is better than everyone else’s, does that give him the right to ignore 3RR? --Captain Occam (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Captain Occam you were blocked for a week for editing warring in March. One of the problems at Race and intelligence, which has now been locked for a week, is that vistors and 2 IPS from Belgium who have never edited the page before have been arriving. This is quite rare and I am quite puzzled as to why all of a sudden it's happening. The problem with the images is that they are of SAT tests which are not IQ tests, and the article is about IQ tests. That it is discussed explicitly in the secondary sources we're using. The person adding the images has shown no willingness to discuss secondary sources - either what's written in Fish's 2002 book or Nisbett's 2010 book. That is not very promising. Unfortunately most of the content of the article was not decided by consensus since during the last stages of the failed mediation the draft article was created directly in namespace.


 * Looking at the diffs, I was rewriting the material to remove a BLP violation concerning Richard Nisbett. So in fact the fourth diff removed this BLP violation and the fifth diff was to remove duplicated new material in the section (still the part with the BLP violation) which had been completley rewritten to solve the problem of mischaracterising Nisbett as a "researcher in race and intelligence" (other living academics were also mischaracterised). I had put BLP tag in that section. The last diff is just the returning Belgian IP blocked above in the Ramdrake section.


 * I should also admit that I thought 3RR applied to the same material but I guess I know now. I have no idea why there have been so many IP and other editors who have arrived at this page for the first time just over the weekend. Mathsci (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * “Captain Occam you were blocked for a week for editing warring in March.”


 * Look at my block log. I haven’t been blocked for anything since January.  I wish you wouldn’t keep making up stuff about other users like this when it suits you.


 * The article’s now been fully protected for a week because of this. I hope you can avoid continuing to edit war after the protection expires. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No action, page semi'd. Technically Mathsci did revert four times in the last 24h including three of the above, but given that the last, recent, edit, was a revert of some spectacularly unhelpful material by a clear anon sock/SPA and it was many hours after the others, I am minded to let it go with a gentle reminder to Mathsci to bring edit-warring issues here instead. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Iceman rides your tail reported by User:Athenean (Result: Blocked per the SPI report)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Four reverts in 25 hours or so, not quite 3RR but close enough. This is made even worse by the fact that this is a sock of the banned User:Shuppiluliuma. SPI is here: .Athenean (talk) 06:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: No need, this is the nth sock of a banned user.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Athenean (talk) 06:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Indef blocked by User:Shirik as a sock of Shuppiluliuma. EdJohnston (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Stubes99 reported by User:JanVarga (Result: Block, semi, warning)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

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

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

Comments:

It seems to be a very complicated case. My misgiving is that user: JanVarga is a sockpuppet of banned Samofi as all he did on wikipedia were 2 reverts in order to restore the same as Samofi edited on this very article beforehand.   

Nay, MartinMagera and user:78.128.181.9 are also probably sockpuppets of Samofi as they ditto resume Samofi's "work" on wikipedia after he has been banned from editing.  --Nmate (talk) 15:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, the blocked user confirmed that 78.128.181.9 is his IP address. "User:78.128.181.9. I think its me, sometimes Iam not logged and write. Last user is not me. --78.128.181.9 (talk) 07:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Ok, so iam sure its me now :) but Tobar888 is not me. --Samofi (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)" The account has been blocked, but the IP address not, (should be, not?) hence he can still edit in a disruptive way.-- B@xter9  16:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment These reverts did not even happen on the same day, hence it is not 3RR, although I agree that tis recent revert war is very disturbing.-- B@xter9 16:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Between 09:50, 24 May 2010  and  07:29, 25 May 2010 there are less than 24h. PS I am not Samofi, an admin could check that  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JanVarga (talk • contribs)
 * I said: Ip 78.128.181.9 is the blocked user (he confirmed this) not you.-- B@xter9 17:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's what happened:
 * is indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet.
 * I reverted JanVarga's last edit because banned editors have no rights to edit.
 * Ányos Jedlik is semi-protected for two weeks to thwart sockpuppetry.
 * is warned for edit-warring. Any further reverting will lead to a block. The reason I hadn't blocked is because it's been many hours since a real revert (i.e. one that was not reverting a sockpuppet). I'm not convinced this edit war will cease, but I'll give him/her the opportunity to prove me wrong.
 * is warned for edit-warring as well. The same point regarding Stubes99 stands with him, and it's even more salient because it appears he's fighting Samofi's fight. Wladthemlat is also reminded that as this is the English Wikipedia, he is requested to speak only English on his talk page. Using Google Translate is not fun. Further, his use of Slovak, rather than English, when corresponding with now banned user Samofi suggests a close editing relationship. That last point goes back to the first -- it appears he's fighting Samofi's fight and he should stop. --  tariq abjotu  20:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Epsteins reported by User:I42 (Result: 24 hour block - article rdr )
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page:

Comments:

I42 (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up notification of this report and advice not to continue:. I42 (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 24 hour holiday, article has been re-directed. SGGH ping! 14:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

User:76.98.33.130 reported by User:Richwales (Result:Blocked for 31 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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (None; see comments below.)

Comments:

User in question has ignored the article talk page and has continued disruptive editing even after having been warned on his user talk page, warned in edit summaries by several other editors, and asked in edit summaries to take the issues to the article talk page. Richwales (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

User has been notified of this noticeboard posting. Richwales (talk) 17:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 31 hours. --Orlady (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Linguisticgeek reported by User:Tej_smiles (Result: Stale)
Page: User being reported:


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

Attempt to resolve the matter amicably. 

3RR Warning:

Comments:

The user started out by editing out info from the page claiming it didnt have reliable info. Even after proiding with the link,discussing about it and repeatedly reasoning the user is bent on editing out the page as he thinks its contrary to his interests. The user was offered neutral adjudication and the page put up for peer review. But still the user continues with his editing under the false claims of 'hoax' and 'unverifiable facts' which clearly amounts to war-editing. The user has even served up a warning for putting up 'wrong facts' though the info has been absolutely verifiable and from dependable sources, hence harassing and hounding the editor. Certain ideas put up by the user on the talk page shows his 'racial'and narrow bent of mind devoid of scientific logic, which doesnt augur well for wiki.

Tej smiles (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

is this some sort of a joke Tej smiles has only been editing the page namadhari naik and related pages and has been invovled in pushing naga/scythian origin pOv in articles when clearly the community has different origins.his citations are pretty much unverifiable blogs to be precise.secondly his edits pushing this scythian pov or hoax on article ahichatraand [nagavanshi]] has been reverted by other known contributors too check the edits history and he has reverted them too.now this does not qualify as edit warring.i understand the three revert policy so i wouldn't revert anymore and charging me of racial bias well the man is himself not ready to accept the racial origins of the namadhari naik community which i think he belongs to and his hence pushing the pov of being scythian.he also clearly admits in my talkk page that his addition on pages indo-scythian were wrong.15:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

1rst. There are no blogs as citations at all on the page.They are all authentic books, mostly govt. publications (how can one miss it?!!!) 2nd. The Naga-Scythian theory has been mentioned as just one of the three theories in 'Origin' section and NOT as an accepted theory, unlike the Users page (and with wrong citations too!) 3rd. I did agree on my editing on the Nagavanshi page being kneejerk ,not the Indo-scythian page (see the 'respected' users talk page) 4rth. Just have a sample of the deeply prejudiced mindset of the 'esteemed' user when he claims the Havyaks looking down upon Halepaiks and blatanly goes on claiming proto australoid feature for all of them. He also claims 'Aryan', 'Scythian','Naga' features belonging to same race as Caucasian!! well did somebody talk about anthropology? it has taken a toss in this case. and he talks authoritatively on the racial origin of others!!!funny 5th. The User does display highly misconcieved and misappropriate notion of racial purity and superiority. The truth being that there is hardly one particular 'race' in India. Doesnt augur well for Wiki standards. see my talk page for a sample. 6th. maybe the user was lacking on some info/knowledge on the subject. it was duely provided and stage set for clearing all doubts through a meaningful discussion (see the arguments on talk pages of both users). but alas, that was not to be. the User chose to resort to edit-war and also place warning on the editor in blatant misuse of wikipedias actions to further his stereotype agenda. 7th. i have restricted myself to editing the above page only as i am extremely interested in it. I have had authentic answers for all the claims of respected user, but havent posted it to avoid offending others. I should mention here that such far-fetching and false claims takes one nowhere. it is necessary to have a balanced and tolerant view in history. nothing is permanent and fixed. i wish him good luck.

Tej smiles (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * --  tariq abjotu  10:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Manila davao ph reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * later edit to article talk:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, only commented in edit summaries

Comments:

Not a strict 3RR violation shown above, but there have been edits to other parts of the article that may carry him over and may carry me over as well. However, considering he felt it necessary to insult my family above... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * --  tariq abjotu  10:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

User:71.139.38.122 reported by User:Schrandit (Result: Declined/Stale)
Page:

User being reported:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

SPA anon made 7 opposed revisions within 24 hours, trading revisions with myself and a few other users, anon was warned by another user. Discussion has been opened up on the article's talk page, the anon has not contributed, so far unanimous support exists for the previous version. - Schrandit (talk) 07:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Schrandit has been POV-pushing to remove categories, content and even sources without any consensus and edit-wars to re-remove without explanation until other parties step in. On Abstinence-only sex education not only was the category supported by the article I added a cite when requested. User:Schrandit edit wars first then chooses to try to block others rather than figuring out if the category is right for an article. They are pushing an anti-homosexual agenda and are compromising articles. Another editor has some examples of Schrandit at work —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.19.85 (talk) 08:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, all. Since I was linked to here, I feel I should speak for myself.  It's true that Schrandit brought up the topic in discussion, but it's also true that 71.139.19.85 fulfilled the demand for a citation.  Let's be clear here: Schrandit has a long, long history of edit-warring while 79.139.19.85 is a complete noob.  Cut him some slack and target the guilty party: Schrandit. NotAmyFuller (talk) 12:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Complete noob" with the edit summaries used? Nah. Nor do you appear to be a "noob" as a matter of fact.     Collect (talk) 12:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not editing any articles, so my status is irrelevant. As for the noob, he doesn't even know how to sign, and everyone who edits is prompted to fill in a comment.  Good job violating WP:AGF, though.
 * What's particularly glaring is that you've said nothing about Schrandit and your edit history reveals you to be entirely sympathetic to the conservative POV that he pushes. You are hardly a neutral party.
 * I've said it before, and I'll say it again: so long as Schrandit pushes POV here, this will lead to edit wars. You can bite every noob, but more will take their place. NotAmyFuller (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My comment was that you are not a "noob" nor is the IP a "noob." That is hardly a reason to attack my "edit history" which has no relationship to the facts at hand. Further, you appear not to have really looked at my edit history, else you would know that my concerns over BLP are dominant in my edit history. Collect (talk) 13:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

How many times are we going to do this dance? Like anyone, I make mistakes, and when I make them here they are corrected by other editors. You are the only one who thinks I am pushing POV, you are the only one who tries to war with my edits. The community sides with me during every one of these protracted debates, you see a conservative conspiracy, occam's razor is handy, use it. - Schrandit (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I have edited on and off for a while but rarely have I seen the contemptuous POV-pushing as Schrandit has done. Check out his work on Equality Mississippi article. He deletes sources then demands them to be sourced. I ask him not to delete sources and of course he edit wars over this. Other admins have been much nicer and appreciated my work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.19.85 (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Those links were dead and had been for a while. What other work? - Schrandit (talk) 13:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

To be clear I have no care if Schrandit has a Catholic lifestyle or any other religion but using that as a springboard to delete content through slow deterioration, constant tagging, removing sources, et al is compromising the quality of articles. Those dead links should be updated not removed, even I know that. You don't remove an entire source because the hyperlink is stale or moved, you find the new one or an archived version. But you don't remove sources. And I have no interest in playing a deflect game here. You were editing warring on multiple articles to remove a homosexuality-related category and multiple people reverted you. Don't pretend there is anything else going on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.19.85 (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yawn, this has been covered ad nauseum in the other spotfixer-related dramatics, in short - Citing sources - read it. - Schrandit (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you should re-read. It clearly states not to delete but to find ways to keep sources. If your yawn means your incorrectly used this argument to justify edit-warring before then you are wrong again. Showing utter disrespect for the rules and other people is horrible behavior. 71.139.19.85 (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

So Shrandit has been edit warring on several articles and that's being ignored now? 71.139.19.85 (talk) 09:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're the only one making that allegation. - Schrandit (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The articles speak for themselves, just look at Equality Mississippi. You removed sources after being asked not to again and again. The only reason you stopped at Abstinence-only sex education was you were warned to stop. Do you really have to be warned before you stop blindly deleting? 71.139.19.85 (talk) 03:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Anon, you were clearly edit warring, so you are hardly someone to talk about "showing disrespect for the rules". Schrandit was also edit warring, but to a lesser degree. It's been over two days, so I'm not thinking there's much good to be had in blocking anyone now, but seriously, you (and I'm talking mainly to the anon here) need to stop with the constant reverting or you're going to end up blocked eventually. I plan to close this as stale shortly. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Just so you know, I read through absolutely zero of the comments written above. Why edit-warriors find it useful to continue their battles on AN3 is beyond me. Those types of reports inevitably lead to either no action or blocks for both parties. --  tariq abjotu  10:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see article Equality Mississippi,. Schrandit points out Citing sources as a reason to delete sources but  Citing sources states exactly the opposite. As soon as this case was marked declined he returned to edit-war again on multiple articles. If someone would be willing to have a look I think his delete until caught, edit war until warned strategy have been repeated many times. 71.139.19.85 (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

User:131.215.195.228/User:131.215.7.137 reported by User:Eugeneacurry (Result: Not actionable)
Page:

User being reported: /

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here and here

Link to attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Inflation_(cosmology)

Comments:

The material the IP is attempting to delete has been on the page for months and has been reinserted into the article by 4 different editors in the last 24 hours. Clearly there is no consensus for suppressing the material in question. Eugene (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There may not be consensus to remove the offending section, there is, however a reason to do so, the reason being it's bollocks of the finest water. 128.226.130.123 (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The reinsertion by 4 different editors is a reinsertion by fly-by editors who did not bother to read the Discussion page. If those editors had read the Discussion page, they would have known that WP:Complete bollocks applies to the section that User:Eugeneacurry wants to keep. PYRRHON  talk   21:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This probably isn't the place for this but I suppose that I should mention that Complete bollocks is merely an essay (not a policy, nor even a guideline) and thus has no force here. Also, the section which PYRRHON et al. think is "bollocks" is largely concerned with material written by the well respected and fully tenured philosopher of science John Earman, material that was printed in the peer-reviewed academic journal Philosophy of Science, a journal published by the University of Chicago. Further, Earman's article was peer-reviewed by at least one physicist prior to publication (two of the reviews are anonymous): Allen I. Janis. Wikipedia editors are of course entitled to their personal opinions regarding these men and institutions, but Wikipedia articles require more than such opinions to guide their creation. Eugene (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * To gauge the standing of any hypothesis in science one must look at its reception. Paper is patient, anyone can make any statement, much slips past peer review, in the end what counts isn't the place of publication but what those in the line of business think about those statements. Good theories are built upon, bad ones are mostly ignored. It should be quite obvious by now that those who know about physics think the disputed paragraphs ought to go. So far not one person who actually knows about the subject matter (as opposed to well-meaning but clueless drive-by editors) has argued the Earman stuff should remain. 128.226.130.123 (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If the quality of academic work is found in its reception, and if such a reception can be gauged by whether others have "built upon" a given idea, I note that Google scholar indicates that Earman's paper is cited by 29 distinct publications, with many of those appearing in other peer-reviewed academic journals such as Philosophy Compass, Synthese, the Journal for General Philosophy of Science, the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Metaphysica, Science in Context, Inquiry, Astrophysics and Space Science, and Studies In History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies In History and Philosophy of Modern Physics. But, of course, this report concerns a policy violation (WP:3RR) not a content dispute. Eugene (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

If anyone is getting blocked over this is has to be Gene for fighting in the workplace. This issue had been concluded on the discussion page, there was no need to carry it here. 128.226.130.123 (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "There may not be consensus to remove the offending section" vs. "This issue had been concluded on the discussion page". Which is it? Eugene (talk) 00:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless the material is rubbish, just like the CTMU material that has also been removed. It has no place in a technical article. --Michael C. Price talk 01:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * From the very first sentence of WP:V- "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth-whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." (emphasis original) Eugene (talk) 01:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia permits editors to remove vandalism without regard for the 3-revert rule (See Three-revert rule.). The editors about whom User:Eugeneacurry is complaining appear to have treated the insertion of drivel into Inflation_(cosmology) as an act of vandalism. I suggest that treating the insertion of drivel as vandalism is appropriate because there is no substantial difference between writing in an article "Earth is a cube" and writing "I hate school." Since 3RR does not apply to instances of vandalism, the complaint by User:Eugeneacurry is without merit. I suggest that the complaint be dismissed with the advice to User:Eugeneacurry that he is misconstruing WP:V and that Wikipedia is not a repository for drivel. PYRRHON  talk   21:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Work published by leading academics in mainstream peer-reviewed journals is drivel? PYRRHON, you get an "A" for effort. Eugene (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Retracted article on dopaminergic neurotoxicity of MDMA. Polywater. N rays. Hendrik Schoen. Plenty others. 128.226.130.123 (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have reliable sources that specifically refute the material in the section in question feel free to add that information. Given that "citation needed" tags languished on the unsubstantiated claims of such refutations for months I rather doubt, however, that they will be forthcoming. I'm not trying to be unreasonable; I'm merely noting that the unsubtantiated opinions of Wikipedia editors (who, further, lack consensus) are not enough to exclude RSes from the article and certainly are not enough to justify edit warring. Eugene (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That Earman material is so far out that it just becomes subject to Broad & Wade's "invisible boot". 128.226.130.123 (talk) 23:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Eugene, this is a severe violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE - The works in question were not published by physicists but rather by unrelated scientists in unrelated scientific and science related journals. Lack of followup within mainstream physics community venues indicates that the ideas are not felt to be significant or relevant by that community.  Calling the works drivel is unkind and inappropriate, but is an overreaction in the direction that policy supports strongly.
 * I believe that there's a clear consensus that the material doesn't belong and that you're mistakenly applying policy here. There has to be some degree of sophistication about handling sources - a source which is undoubtedly reliable regarding topics of the philosophy of science may have no reliability at all regarding cosmology or other key physics areas.
 * I'm closing this request - followup to the article talk page, but it's not actionable here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Botendaddy reported by User:steelbeard1 (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

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

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

Comments:

I had politely asked him to use bonafied journalistic citations to back up his questionable edits but he just reverts to the versions using his questionable citations.

Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed this and reverted Botendaddy's last as POV. While the above diffs are only three, I've just stepped through the editing of this article over the last three days and Botendaddy is clearly edit warring over this point. It is also an undue weight issue as military service is not required in any way for the roles he performs; indeed, it is consistent with the whole concept of civilian oversight of the military.

Jack Merridew 02:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * @Tariqabjotu re my revert: reverting it was the editorially correct step, IMHO. I also left a comment on the article talk page, and comments in the threads at WP:BLP/N and WP:EAR. I warned the user on their talk page, too. Thanks; hopefully user will revert less tomorrow. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how you think reverting the user again would have resolved the matter. --  tariq abjotu  07:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The still blocked Botendaddy wishes to seek arbitration, if you read his talk page, which I think he will lose as no one agrees with him so far. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I found an acceptable way of mentioning Levin's lack of military service using his own words from a CQ Roll Call article that was newly found. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

User:108.2.200.127, User:Phil marcella, & User:98.225.175.227 reported by User:Ciricula (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported (has used three accounts):

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


 * 1st revert: 12:00, 25 April 2010 (user 98.225.175.227 blanked section)
 * 2nd revert: 12:05, 25 April 2010 (user Phil marcella blanked restored section for second time with edit summary “See also: Mark Gerban is NOT a member of the club.”)
 * 3rd revert: 15:35, 23 May 2010 (user 108.2.200.127 blanked restored section for third time)
 * 4th revert: 20:18, 27 May 2010 (user 108.2.200.127 blanked restored section for the fourth time)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User 108.2.200.127, but cross-posted on User talk:98.225.175.227 and User talk:Phil marcella.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

As detailed in the warning/discussion, this editor has used three accounts to make the same edit without discussion. While this slow edit war is not a violation of the 3RR, it is clear that this editor will continue to delete the See Also section and appears to be deliberately trying to prevent others' editing. The apparent motivation is to prevent readers from linking to a biography of Mark Gerban, a former member who had a negative interaction with the Malta Boat Club. Further dispute resolution seems futile as this editor has ignored my attempts to communicate and the edits of two others here and here.

Ciricula (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * --  tariq abjotu  10:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Vt-88 reported by User:Wildhartlivie (Result: 36 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: - giving the deceptive edit summary of "combined labels, removed odd links", which effectively hid that he had taken up reverting again.
 * 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: Talk:Cher and Talk:Cher

Comments:

EdJohnston semi-protected this article because of edit warring by a person using a dynamic IP and couldn't block the account on May 23. Miraculously, the editor "remembered" he had a registered account after the semi-protect and immediately posted a complaint of the semi-protect being "unfair" at WP:AN/I. Last night, the editor make a semi-attempt to discuss on the article talk page, at least until he quit posting there. He only posted to the article talk page tonight after he had reverted for the 4th time and received the warning about this report. Then he only repeated the same things that had been discussed last night. He combines two separate recording contracts that Cher had for the US and the UK branches of Warner Bros., removes the Warner Bros. artist page link and her officially sanctioned fan club site. I explained the issue to him, that I see content on the Warner Bros. page, that her official fan club is fine and that she has two separate contracts with two separate spheres of operation. He either doesn't listen, read or understand, but he continues. Basically, what we have here is the return of an IP editor with a registered account, that would have been blocked for 3RR violations if his IP wasn't dynamic, edit warring the same content as the registered account. He slid in on a technicality to be able to continue his POV content removal. He reverted a 5th time when another editor reverted his changes and then reverted the 6th. This guy has no intention of stopping and he has no intention of responding here or on the article talk page or on his own article. This has crossed the line into being tendentious. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I can address this report to you as well. --Vt-88 (talk) 10:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing more than two reverts by Wildhartlivie. Could you provide diffs of Wildhartlivie's 3+ reverts? N.B. I'm of several editors who have reverted Vt-88. TFOWRpropaganda 10:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean that she is always speculating and present me as a conflict starter. I don't know if I or she first did 3+ reverts. I answered you on my talk page also.--Vt-88 (talk) 10:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * --  tariq abjotu  10:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)