Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive140

User:130.194.170.146 reported by User:RDBury (Result: Semiprotected)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The editor persisted in restoring material when it was deleted as apparent OR by two experienced editors (this does not include myself). The editor seems unwilling abide by the community consensus and has attempted to carry the argument over to my user talk page.RDBury (talk) 04:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've semi-protected Plimpton 322 for three day, and started a discussion on the talk page. --Salix (talk): 07:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much indeed for entering into this matter so promptly. I am very grateful to User:RDBury for reporting it.
 * Reply by the IP editor

As I have been pressing User:RDBury, I should like to learn the precise reason for the excision of this particular material. Various reasons have been given, and I have tried to address them carefully, point by point, as the reasons have changed. For example, David Eppstein first had concerns that the material might lead to conclusions about the use of Plimpton 322, then there was worry about inferences that might be drawn about the skills of the Babylonians, although such implications are already present in setting out the interpretations in the article itself. I have tried both to counter these concerns and to make the material quite explicit on this score.

I understand that Wikipedia has a policy on original research. To point this up, I have now edited the material to provide a first source, in the form of an internal link to the Wikipedia article on Difference of squares - it is this age-old trick that appositely enough provides the mathematical reconciliation between the the theses of Neugebauer and of Robson, which would seem innocent enough. But here is the rub for Wikipedia's policy. The article on Difference of squares is itself flagged and open to challenge, although somehow it survives. Could it be that when it comes to mathematics, the policy on original research and sourcing needs to be reviewed?

The objection to original research as synthesis is surely where synthesis is tendentious. It is very difficult for mathematics simpliciter, say, the difference of squares, to be tendentious. On the other hand, User: AnnekeBart gave some fine examples of tendentious synthesis and non-sequiters in seconding David Eppstein's objections. I am afraid these comments do rather make it seem that there is some underlying objection to the section quite other than that the mathematics is unsourced as mathematics at Wikipedia is wont to be, so that even if sourced the material would still be excised.

Surely it is melodramatic to describe discussions as warring. I do hope that none of you at Wikipedia feels at all embattled. I only started because I was amazed that there was not this section in your definitive article already. If I have persisted, that is because I prefer to be constructive and to try to learn exactly what objections are, especially when there is some appearance of being given the run around. If this discussion helps you come to grips with your policies on mathematics, perhaps actually removing an article such as Difference of squares, that will be all to the good. But naturally I hope that you will not do anything that makes you look foolish in a wider society.

It is likely that the material in the section under consideration can probably be sourced further, not just with internal links to Wikipedia articles, but to publications. There is a large body of material by Jens Hoeyrup that is actually cited very prominently in one of the principal references for the article, Robson's contribution to Historia Mathematica, as I have been mentioning for some time. Hoeyrup certainly discusses such tricks as taking sums and differences of two parameters and difference of squares, in the very context of Old Babylonian mathematics. But I am uncertain whether any of the editors recognise or care that Robson cites sources that can be drawn on in this way.

Do you see, there is a certain inconsistency there with, say, Difference of squares, which survives to be worked on further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.170.146 (talk) 06:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Richard Morris User: Salix alba has now weighed in on the talk page of Plimpton 322 with a travesty of what I wrote in the excised section, in the face of an explicit disclaimer that I was making any of the sort of claims he asserts. While I am naturally perturbed that he should voluntarily reveal himself as such an inattentive reader, it certainly does help explain otherwise bizarre behaviour; and I am grateful for this insight into the operation of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.170.146 (talk) 08:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Menuet111 and User:MjMenuet111 reported by User:Attilios (Result: Full-protection, former account blocked)
User user:Menuet111 (a sockpuppet of user:MjMenuet111) is keeping revertion of his poorly formatted version of Temple of Caesar after numerous corrections attempts, from me and user:Johnbod. --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 08:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

_____________________

I call here an investigation about the behaviour of &#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39;.

'''User &#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; here has been insulting, mobbing and threatening since August 31. And I am scared.'''

User &#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; is regularly insulting and threatening me and other people.

First of all user:Menuet111 is not a sockpuppet of user:MjMenuet111, but is the independet account of my brother. As you can see, we have always respected Wiki-Rules and tried to give help and improve the Common Knowledge through our professional expertise. But on August 31 '''&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; started insulting us, and, then not satisfied, started mobbing and now even threatening us: I say, is this Encyclopedia editing? Is it? Really? So I opened a serious Talk discussion, but, as you can see, &#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; just keeps insulting, mobbing and threatening and no discussion: as you can easily see through all his messages,&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39;' behaviour is always: do what I want or I'll kill you: sorry this is not discussion, this is not editing. Now I am really terrified and afraid of &#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39;' behaviour.'''

'''&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; has already reverted Temple of Caesar, I think, tons of times only in 24 h: it seems even through an automatic device. Is it legal this behaviour? I have told him and others I had accepted their work and their advices, as you can see in the Talk page and everyone thanked me apart from this person, and I was going to further wiki-fy and fix the style of the article and wrote that I will have finished the full wikification of the article the next days'''. But &#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; was not satisfied: he started reverting furiously everywhere and heavily insulting me, keeping calling me with insulting words, and this everywhere and now '''even really threatening me! even in the talk pages!, everywhere &#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; says he is only editing: but, sorry, it is sure this (insulting and threatening people here and furious automatic reverting) is not encyclopedic editing'''.

Pay attention: because, as you can see, the editing of &#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; always involves the content of the article and his editing destroys de facto the content of the article!

'''I call here an investigation about the behaviour of &#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39;. This person should moderate his own manners.'''

MjMenuet111 (talk) 08:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - This report is malformed. Badly.  No WP:DIFFS whatsoever.  Lots of bold text, though.  See WP:BROTHER concerning the other account... Doc9871 (talk) 09:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As you can see, we'redealing with somebody unaware of any of the simplest basics of Wikipedia, insisting and insisting in his theories of his ownership of Temple of Caesae, not accepting any of the advices with which I began the discussions with him, keeping reverting the article to his version also after editing from other volunteers, and so on. Since the beginning I told him that the content he added was good, but just the style was horrendous. I invited him many times to give at least a glance to WP:Manual of Style, for example, and you can see from the previous lines that he didn't at all. --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've done this for a period of one week, and I've also blocked User:Menuet111 for obvious sockpuppetry. This is a slow moving edit war with no technical violations of 3RR. Please hash out the discussion on the talk page and use dispute resolution if necessary; if you're able to come to an agreement before protection expires, feel free to place a note at WP:ANI asking for the page to be unprotected. However, please don't return to edit warring after the protection expires, or a block may be necessary for anyone that engages in it.Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Andy120290 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Indef)
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: There are multiple sections on the Talk page discussing the Criticism section and its removal. There are also similar discussions on the Talk pages of United States Supreme Court and President of the United States. Similar Criticism sections were inserted into all three articles back in 2009 after much discussion (I was not a part of that discussion). The recent 2010 removals of the sections were all done by one editor (not the editor being reported). Last I looked, the sections on the court and president pages were restored and remain restored. However, on the Congress page, the reported editor keeps removing the section, in one instance saying he doesn't want to talk about it in his edit summary ("Talk gets me nowhere"). More than one editor has undone the reported editor's reversions, but he keeps coming back (I have undone the latest, but I don't intend to undo any more). Finally, I didn't really understand the instructions on "previous version reverted to," so I put in the original version before the reversions. My apologies if that's not what you wanted.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Result - Blocked indef, on the assumption that his account has been hacked. He has made legitimate contributions in the past. Any admin can unblock if they are sure this editor is back in control of his account, and if a good explanation can be given. EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Forgive me if this comment is unnecessary. Since I reported the editor, he has continued to revert (and be reverted by others). More important, he removed the section from the President of the United States article here and has been reverted here. I'm staying out of the reversions pending a result here.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment He just this edit. I reverted, but its obvious that he doesn't seem to care, or his account has been hacked. Either way, he has ignored various attempts to discuss, and continues to remove content.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

User:MickMacNee reported by User:Bzuk (Result:no action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: Edit comment: Feedback:  usefull (sic) comments only please
 * 2nd revert: Edit comment: Undid revision 384430179 by Bzuk (talk) to keep the discussion on topic, that's how. It is a useless post, Wikipedia is not an exercise in Free Speech
 * 3rd revert: Edit Comment: Feedback pp
 * My edit:

In the discussion "string", I did not notice when the third revert had been made but did note an antagonism towards other editors who had a contrary opinion, primarily in making derisive comments. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC).
 * I find this a completely lame edit war on both sides. It was an off-topic comment and didn't need to be there, but it also didn't need to be edit warred off the page. I'm inclined to close this with no action for the time being, but would be ready to block for further lame edit warring. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm not sure which is the bigger waste of time: the edit war, or the five minutes we had to spend investigating it. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 02:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How about we just call it a tie and let that be good enough? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies, as this is one of the few times I have resorted to this type of report but I do believe that refactoring comments is not acceptable, although I admit that the original comment was more of an aside. I did not want to engage any further in an editwar and will let it go. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC).

User:Guinea pig warrior reported by User:Jenks24 (Result: Blocked two weeks for now)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: There are other constructive, non-related edits interspersed, but basically, I think, to this diff, when he first removed the logo.


 * 1) 07:31, 12 September 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 384303964 by McAusten (talk) I will report this. You are not giving me a reason.")
 * 2) 11:41, 12 September 2010  (edit summary: "That is not a proper answer.")
 * 3) 12:21, 12 September 2010  (edit summary: "Give me a proper reason first. The AFL logo isn't the offical logo of the season.")
 * 4) 12:32, 12 September 2010  (edit summary: "Listen to what the admin wrote and stop stalking me.")
 * 5) 04:42, 13 September 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 6) 05:20, 13 September 2010  (edit summary: "Even though this was changed while the discussion was on the way. The discussion started when it was like this so please leave it.")
 * 7) 05:30, 13 September 2010  (edit summary: "Is there a reason why you took it down. Please do not. Thank you.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

This user has consistantly removed an image from the article even though consensus at the talk page is clearly against him. Please note that it is my opinion that the article looks better with the logo, but if consensus were to remove it (there also seems to be some sort of copyright issue) then that would be fine. I just want the constant reverting to stop and, unfortunatley, I believe a block of GPW would probably be the best way to achieve this. Jenks24 (talk) 06:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm not convinced a temporary block would achieve anything. Guinea Pig Warrior has said himself that he doesn't intend on changing his ways. Jevansen (talk) 06:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - based on that diff above, I'm heavily considering an indef block. Second opinions? Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems a bit severe, apparently its an old logo and there may be minor copyright issues with it also, all needed clearing up and would have been better imo to have done that with the logo out of the article. I also notice that after Guinea Pig warrior was given the warning by Jenk24 he did not make any edits at all and then Jenk24 reported him, I don't see any value to having given him a warning and then reported him after when he did not again edit, you are supposed to warn and then if they revert again then you report them at least that is the correct method as per guidelines. Off2riorob (talk) 08:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * He has been warned plenty before, and has a history of socking, edit warring, and personal attacks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe he has but he wasn't warned correctly today and any previous socking has got nothing to do with this report either. Even better as regards a decent report is after you warn them on their talkpage and if they then revert you can offer them the opportunity to self revert and if they don't then you have a decent case for making a report. Off2riorob (talk) 08:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, I'm not convinced an editor needs to be warned about 3RR more than one time before the warning is unnecessary, let alone more than multiple times. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As had been pointed out he has previously been banned for edit warring and has 3RR warnings pasted all over his talk page so I think it's safe to say he either knows the rule or isn't interested in reading up on it. If you want something from the last 24 hours see the last paragraph from my post at Talk:2010 AFL season. He continued the discussion after my post so it's fair I think to say that he read it. Hours later he was back edit warring. Also if anything has issues with the specific edit war listed in this report he has also been warring at Port Adelaide Football Club. Jevansen (talk) 09:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I issued a previous 3RR block of this editor. He has built up a record over the last few weeks, showing he is both well-intentioned and very stubborn. (He has socked twice to get around a block). Unless we want to *give* him the sports articles for him to do with as he pleases, it seems like an indef block is necessary. A permanent change of heart would be welcome, but seems highly unlikely. EdJohnston (talk) 12:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I am frastrated with the people who are even discussion this. I want a "netual person", somebody who has never been involved with me instead of people who mock me, abuse me. Jevansen, you called me a imarture twirp and now your discussion on how to get me off wikipedia. Please get an admin who is fair and not a smart alec and serious on the issue. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to apologise if I didn't warn GPW correctly, as Off2riorob says above. This is the first time I've reported anyone at the Administrators' noticeboard (indeed it's actually the first time I've even come to this page) and I did try to follow the correct procedure. I just didn't think it would be beneficial to leave the 3RR warning on his talk page, then revert him on the article so that he could then revert me back and then I would have my "excuse" to report him here. Instead I thought that seeing as he has had 7 reverts in the last 24 hrs it would be ok to bring it here straight away, but again if I have done this incorrectly I truly do apologise. Jenks24 (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, the user clearly was stepping over the line and as someone said, he has enough template warnings on his talkpage to understand what the situation is. I have left him a note here with a couple of suggestions for him that may well be a better outcome for him if he is willing to accept one of them, but this is something he could also consider from a blocked position, just trying to help. I will leave it with you guys. Off2riorob (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

User has a pretty long history of behavioral issues and has been blocked once before for edit warring. No warning should be necessary in this case; he should be well aware of our policy on edit warring. Any administrator may increase the length of the block if they deem it justified, but hopefully two weeks will be enough for the user to get the point. --Chris (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

User:88.120.128.82 reported by User:Wehwalt (Result: warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Statue_of_Liberty&oldid=384321107


 * 1) 05:30, 13 September 2010  (edit summary: "â†’ Criticism rv, not justified")
 * 2) 07:03, 13 September 2010  (edit summary: "â†’ Criticism, unjustified rv")
 * 3) 09:27, 13 September 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 384550556 by Wehwalt (talk) is directly related to the statue")
 * 4) 09:47, 13 September 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 384552587 by Wehwalt (talk) you have no consensus, please discuss on talk page before reverting again.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A188.120.128.82&action=historysubmit&diff=384555156&oldid=382475910

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AStatue_of_Liberty&action=historysubmit&diff=384552995&oldid=383878419

Comments: Editor keeps trying to add section on "Criticism" which is actually a plug for the Statue of Responsibility, a barely notable proposed statue to be built somewhere on the West Coast, and has reverted myself and User:DCGeist four times in the last several hours. I thought i had only done 2RR, actually I had done 3, though it is by a matter of minutes. I limit myself to 2RR, so any personal fault I apologize for. The editor in question does not seem interested in discussing the matter. This is the only article the IP has more than one edit to.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Editor has not made any edits since warning. Feel free to revert the last edit the editor made. If the editor makes another edit, please Just go ahead and restore the result: portion of section header to blank and add the last diff of the edit warring. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I see no warning on the IP"s talk page, other than the one I left, which he may discount.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is quite enough. If there's more edit warring, point any administrator to this thread if you need to prove a block is necessary and warranted. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Factocop reported by User:Lithistman (Result: already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ; There are warnings all over his talkpage for similar behavior.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

He's made it very clear that he's going to keep reverting, no matter what, because he's very certain he's right. Lithistman (talk) 16:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Aorist
User:Pmanderson has now moved the page Aorist to Aorist (linguistics) as part of a content dispute three times today - twice after being told that he should achieve consensus first. It is a clear case of disrupting wikipedia to make a point. As move warring is much more disruptive than simple revert warring I believe a sanction is in order. Prior to his third move I had protected the article, but as Pmanderson suggested that I am somehow involved in the dispute (I don't think I am) I unprotected it, whereupon he promptly moved it again. The page cannot be moved back by non-admin users since the move involves deleting the dab page that he created in its original place.·Maunus· ƛ · 23:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually WP:POINT would be doing something I opposed as a demonstration against another action; if I had seen a marginal article kept, creating "an article on what you consider to be a similarly unsuitable topic just to get it listed for deletion and have others make the same arguments you are making."Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * For the substance, see below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think your interpretation of WP:POINT is wrong - we will see what other admins think about your display of diplomacy and collaborative editing.·Maunus· ƛ · 00:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson reported by User:Taivo (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

I don't know how to mark diffs when the offending editor is moving pages. Sorry. User has moved Aorist to Aorist (linguistics) three times without getting consensus.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: in edit summary from admin

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: and other places in the discussion.

Comments:

User:Pmanderson has proven to be a disruptive and non-contributing editor on this article. The consensus was to move the discussion of Greek aorist to Aorist (Greek), but to leave the general discussion at Aorist. PMAnderson proposed on several occasions to move Aorist to Aorist (linguistics), but the consensus was against this. PMAnderson today then proceeded to move the article anyway. He was reverted twice by an admin. When the admin lifted protection on the article, PMAnderson again moved the article without a word of consensus. In the discussion on the Talk page, PMAnderson has objected to nearly everything that the other editors have agreed to and refuses to recognize consensus. --Taivo (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Taivo's "consensus" consists of the opinion of two editors, himself and Kwamikagami, that the article on "aorist", a Greek term, must use the terminology of one school of modern theoretical linguistics, and must include erroneous statements on the Greek, Sanskrit, and Slavonic aorists, because he has found something like them as generalizations in books talking about something else.


 * His contributions have consisted almost entirely of revert warring; indeed the article was protected on August 31 because of his and Kwami's activities.


 * There was actual consensus on having two articles; so the material on the Greek aorist (inaccurate though it was) was moved to Aorist (Ancient Greek) as a BOLD way to deal with the problem. His complaint is that I have moved the remainder to Aorist (linguistics), since this obscure and recent jargon is not the primary meaning of the term - if there is one.


 * If he had consensus, as opposed to a revert button, his remedy would lie at WP:RM. But he comes here instead. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You are being disingenuous - there are several other editors commenting on the talk page, none of whom thought the move was a good idea. Secondly you didn't even post on the talk page before moving and thirdly you repeated the move after being instructed (by me not Taivo or Kwami) to seek consensus and discuss on the talk page before moving. There really is no excuse for your behaviour which is simply disruptive and leads to escalation of conflicts instead of improvement of article content. It also betrays a fundamental lack of understanding on you part of how collaborative wikipedia editing works.·Maunus· ƛ · 00:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)PMAnderson has understated the consensus. There are approximately five editors who have participated recently in the discussions in one way or another.  Myself and Kwami, as well as Erutuon and Maunus (the latter to a limited extent).  There have been a couple of others who have not posted recently.  PMAnderson stands alone and has gained absolutely none of the other editors to his POV.  He opposed the split of the article to "Aorist" and "Aorist (Greek)".  He moved the article to "Aorist (linguistics)" by edit warring.  His previous attempts to get the "Aorist" article to "Aorist (linguistics)" were opposed and no one agreed with his proposed move.  He has promulgated an edit war on the matter and has been reported twice here, by an admin and by myself.  That should be evidence of his edit warrior mentality.  --Taivo (talk) 00:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And WP:RM is not the appropriate place when the mover has moved against consensus, ignored the warnings of an admin, and edit warred to get his way. This is the appropriate place to report edit warring.  --Taivo (talk) 00:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Maunus - although he clearly disagrees with the move - has objected at length to Taivo's obscurantism; he has done something at last to clear it up. Akhilleus, Cynwolfe, Radagast, Wareh, and myself have objected more or less firmly to all or part of Taivo's dogmatic program; Erutonon has expressed doubts. That this intransigent revert-warring vandal has driven most of them away is not the recommended way to produce consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Taivo's last claim is equally false. The consensus was to split; there was no consensus on where to split. If Taivo's bafflegab about consensus were true, he would be able to prove it by a move request; but he makes none, because it isn't true. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Listing instructions, top of the page, "Do not continue a dispute on this page. You should try to address the problem through dispute resolution." Is there a 3RR violation to report here? Doc9871 (talk) 00:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No. I have not moved the page four times. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This page is not just for 3RR violations but also for editwarring which you have - a very disruptive kind.·Maunus· ƛ · 00:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct - but this is "continuing a dispute" that is escalating, and not a properly formed report for this board. There's personal attacks and everything.  Calm down, everyone: it's just a wiki... Doc9871 (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think not. As Doc9871 said, take the dispute where it belongs. There is move warring for sure, but it takes two to tango. There appears to be at least some reasoned discussion going on, which will be ground to a halt if participants are blocked. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 02:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Faust reported by 173.58.234.86 (talk) (Result: page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 23:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 21:42,  8 September 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 383716972 by Zaspino (talk)")
 * 2) 21:46,  8 September 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 383716972 by Zaspino (talk)Don't start an edit-war. Try to reach consensus first.")
 * 3) 06:28,  9 September 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 383721840 by Pfhorrest (talk)Please, stop this edit-war and cite at least ONE source for you POV.")
 * 4) 09:14,  9 September 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 383799881 by Pfhorrest (talk)Sources do not support this wording. Please, do not edit-war.")


 * Diff of warning: here

—173.58.234.86 (talk) 23:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments: Other instances of the problem which have yet to become not 3RR violations:
 * 1) 16:07, 13 September 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 384502416 by Pfhorrest (talk)All cited sources contradict this version.")
 * 2) 16:10, 13 September 2010  (edit summary: "replaced last undisputed version.")
 * 3) 20:00, 13 September 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 384631138 by Zaspino (talk)Quit it Zaspino, discuss your POV and motivate it properly.")

Other instances which are not 3RR violations but show persistent general edit-warring against the consensus:
 * 1) 22:14,  6 September 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 382858025 by 79.182.17.168 (talk) Kindly discuss. It is not about the standard, but about the will for universality.")
 * 2) 07:02,  7 September 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 383390752 by 173.58.234.86 (talk)No consensus, nor correctness.")

In addition to 3RR, in this edit war Faust is acting against the wp:consensus. He is the only editor that has shown this viewpoint. --173.58.234.86 (talk) 23:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What about this fellow that's just shown up and reverted it to Faust's version? I wonder if the page should just be protected until you can all work it out. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the user noticed the talk page per diff comment, but I'll assume good faith here. The disucssion has been going on for quite some time (end of August/start of September). All editors other than him and Faust support the consensus as well as an RfC opinion. Faust appears the only editor opposed to it. Anyways, he still violated 3RR, but it might have been too long ago for you to take action. I'm not sure.--173.58.234.86 (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I asked User:Ohnoitsjamie (the "this fellow" mentioned above), after his revert, to read Talk:Morality and comment there. I note that he is an admin and appears to have been in the process a general sweep of vandalism/spam/etc when he reverted, so he probably just happened by, saw some reverting going on, and undid it with a comment to take it to talk, without noticing we already have. Since he hasn't replied and was actively editing for a good while after I made my comment, I doubt that he's especially interested. --Pfhorrest (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Because Faust's edit summaries (as shown here) sound misleadingly benign, I've compiled a short annotated list of links to all relevant diffs (changes to the article and Faust's reversions thereof), viewable at Talk:Morality. As you can see there, the bulk of the conflict has not been Zaspino and I against Faust (as the edit summaries above suggest), but it began between Faust and several different anons, and Zaspino and I are relative latecomers. I personally make a point of not entering into disputes like this in the article space (vs talk) until there are at least three other editors struggling against one single edit-warrior like Faust. --Pfhorrest (talk) 02:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to state that the above is untrue on all accounts. All of the edits I undid have been attempts of mine to revert the project page to the undisputed version and to get people to discuss their POV's at the talk page so that we could come to an agreement by menas of rationality, but so far all attempts have failed with this group. As can be seen by checking the talk page the discussion was started by me on the talk page because Zaspino undid the addition of a reference (which I then had to reference...). Later Theobald Tiger joined on zaspino's side. Since both lack any kind of knowledge and interest in the field of philosophy and as such were unable to give ANY source for their claims I patiently argued my case, even though it was a transferral of nl.wiki related problems to en.wiki. When it turned out the two were in trouble the anon's joined in to form a majority so as to block an honest explanation of the term to stand against their POV. Later Pfhorrest joined in, who apparently honestly believes his POV is objective. Since all are behaving in a similar manner I have decided they are tag teaming (apart from Phforrest, whom I think is sincere).
 * To prevent this edit-war from getting started I have asked Zaspino and Theobald to stop their behavior and in every edit I have asked them to argue their case on the TP. I have placed a request at the philosophy project to help me out, but this had no effect. Since Theobald told me in an email he does not care about the content of this encyclopedia, as long as my knowledge does not get public, I do not have the idea that these individuals will ever relent. That is why I previously asked to block the whole lot, which can be seen from this edit (I didn't look for the initial edit btw). Since the edit-war has subsequently taken a second life (from the linked version on), from either adding a reference or not to actually changing the undisputed version to a POV, unfounded by any source, I have continued (as I did before) to revert the page to the last undisputed version (from far before the linked edit) (which had been undisputed for a year or so, but since I started to propose edits suddenly was disputed by nl.wiki user...a big coincidence).
 * UNTIL SO FAR, I have not seen a single source actually stating what all these users are saying. The sources used by this group actually confirm the undisputed version (among other places), which I support. Apart from that I have also added some sources of my own, explained why this is the case and why it is important to pay attention to how this is being said, added even more sources for my previous reference, shown the change that this group is trying to make to be a POV, given linguistic evidence to support my case, but nothing seems to be of interest to this group. Now, it is my understanding that until am agreement has been reached, the undisputed version should be restored. That is what I have been doing.
 * In my opinion the only thing I am guilty of is that I will not let a majority bully me into allowing a POV being presented as objective. If this is a reason for a ban, while this group is transferring issues from nl.wiki to en.wiki, trolling, edit-warring, placing POVs as truth, than I am having a far too idealistic view of this project as a whole. I hope the handling admin will prove my idealistic idea right.
 * I will be on a short trip the coming week and may not be online. Please, make sure the undisputed version is still present when I return.
 * --Faust (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ADDENDUM: In an attempt to prevent this escalation from occuring I had even contacted TFOWR and Shell Kenney to mediate or lend me advice on the matter. I had also left a message at History2007's talk page for a third opinion. (All this after having seen the first edit Zaspino made on en.wiki, his account having been newly created and all his edits being about cancelling mine and his reamrks being exactly similar to the issue on the nl.wiki and these remarks being easily unmaksed as being POV's and these remarks showing clear signs of the user not being interested in the subject at all, which leaves a great question as to why this user is actually editing only the subjects that I am involved in then... --Faust (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Since 3 September, when the RfC opened, Faust has reverted the lead of the article nine times. I believe that Faust should stop reverting until the RfC is closed, and that sanctions should be considered if he will not agree to do so. His comments above indicate he knows there is a majority against his view. "I will not let a majority bully me into allowing a POV being presented as objective." The majority does not always rule here, but there is no justification for him continuing to revert. EdJohnston (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Ed is clearly confused. I am the one reverting the page to the undisputed version. In the mean time the tag-team Theobald has formed keeps trying to push their unsupported POV, while the undisputed version is backed by at least 8 mentioned sources. Why these users keep changing the lead of the article to their POV is beyond me, especially since it is a continuation of a dispute I had with Theobald_Tiger on nl.wiki and is, as such, a transferal of this issue to the en.wiki. Now, again I would like to state my silly example of somebody wishing to add a POV that Bush is an alien without a genetic research as a source. No matter how much of his friends agree with him, it should not be placed....as is the case here. --Faust (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't refer to editors as confused, it can be taken badly, also there is no such thing as an undisputed version that is disputed. Also you have already been warned not to bring your off wiki disputes here. Also you are clearly edit warring and you have had plenty of warnings. Off2riorob (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This user seems to refuse to accept the notion of our consensus policy. He has been warned time and time again on his talk page over the past two weeks. Perhaps it is time to turn the warning into an exclusion ? —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 14:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I first became aware of it here (end of July), at which point Faust was warned not to import disputes from nl.wiki. I'm surprised, therefore, to see nl.wiki referred to above. More recently (on 6 September, after the RfC at Talk:Morality began) this issue returned to ANI. Back in July, had this to say (to Faust and others):
 * "There will be no more trolling, pot stirring, tag teaming, sly provocation, playground-level taunting, or other general silliness and game playing of the sort that has occurred over the past few days, on here and on user talk pages. Warnings issued by TheDJ and TFOWR have clearly not sunk in. Therefore let me make this crystal clear. Any further continuance of this beyond this point, anywhere in Wikipedia, will result in indefinite revocation of editing privileges here at the English Wikipedia. This includes any attempts to gloat or have the last word. This ends. Now. This doesn't belong here; we don't want this here; we're not going to have this here; and continued attempts to bring this here will result in summary ejection from the project forthwith."
 * At the most recent ANI, had ths to say to Faust:
 * "Faust, your pomposity seems to be very much out of proportion when compared to the quality of your editing and your comments. Your user name gives rise to the suspicion that you are aware of that fact. If you are roleplaying, please stop. This is an encyclopedia, not a game."
 * Echoing Uncle G: nothing TheDJ has said to Faust appears to have sunk in; nothing I've said to Faust appears to have sunk in. It's difficult to escape Hans Adler's perception that Faust is treating en.wiki as a roleplaying game: certainly consensus appears to be an alien concept. Frankly, I'm out of options. TheDJ's "exclusion" option is the only one I feel is left, and I also feel it's long overdue. TFOWR 14:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A few comments in my defense:
 * My involvement on the Morality talk page has been minimal. There are two posts by me in support of comments made by Zaspino.
 * I have not "transferred problems from nl.wiki to en.wiki".
 * What Faust tells about an e-mail exchange with me is an outright lie. There has been an e-mail exchange, but I told him something quite different (see: User talk:TheDJ). I am interested in the content of en.wiki as my edit history amply testifies.
 * Theobald Tiger (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I note there has been edit warring by all parties involved. All parties are admonished against edit warring, which may result in a block in the future. Faust and other parties are admonished that any violations for 3RR in the future, no matter how well intentioned, will unquestionably result in a block. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Fine, fair enough, but this isn't going to solve the problem. Besides, you protected the page in Faust's version, which a majority of users doesn't agree with. Normally the parties involved in an edit conflict are urged to discuss the matter on the talk page, but we have already done that and reached a consensus that only Faust objects to. Zaspino (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To be fair, Zaspino, nothing within the scope of this particular noticeboard is going to solve this particular problem on more than a temporary basis. I would advise you to try something like WP:RFC/U. If you believe a user has a long-term pattern of editing against consensus, you can demonstrate it there and longer-term sanctions can be applied. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, I have to point out WP:WRONG. I've commented further on the talk page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

User:PraxisConsensus reported by User:BigK HeX (Result: User blocked for 72 hours. )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:  (he has since blanked this talk page section, removing the warning without response) and (he has blanked this notice without response as well)

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

Comments:

Five editors (User:BigK HeX, User:N6n, User:Ravensfire, User:Lawrencekhoo, and User:Cretog8) have attempted to get the editor to discuss the edit on the talk page. He has disregarded these editors. BigK HeX (talk) 15:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I had also reported the same user, but it seems they were already reported. Anyways, to add my comment that I was about to add to mine before I saw this one, it appears that attempts to take the problem to the talk page have been ignored by Praxis. The Thing //  Talk  //  Contribs  15:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

None of my edits violated the three revert rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PraxisConsensus (talk • contribs) 15:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you misunderstand, you are edit warring to keep in an unreliable source. You explicitly reverted the removal of that source 5 times, without discussion on the talk page. The Thing  //  Talk  //  Contribs  15:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * With 6 clear reverts, your assertion may need further elaboration, please. BigK HeX (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

User has been blocked. The Thing //  Talk  //  Contribs  15:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

User:TruthFighterX reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness (Result:24 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page:

Comments:


 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

User:ValenShephard reported by User:SandyGeorgia (Result: blocked 1 week)
Page: and

User being reported:

The current issue, at Villa del Cine (I did not report the edit war at Hugo Chavez)

Last version before reverts: 22:57, September 13, 2010


 * 1st revert: 22:57, September 13, 2010 (removes reliably sourced text because he doesn't like it, says based on talk, but there was no discussion on talk at that point)
 * 2nd revert: 00:06, September 14, 2010 After discussion on talk, I reinstate the text, which ValenShephard deletes a second time.
 * 3rd revert: 15:35, September 14, 2010 Then he installs his favored text, in spite of unanimous consensus on talk for different text:
 * 4th revert: 15:39, September 14, 2010 Then fully reverts another reliably sourced text addition I made.
 * 5th revert: 16:19, September 14, 2010 Continues cleansing reliably sourced text in spite of weeks-old discussion on talk that article needs balance, and without discussing this particular text removal. (Also refers to reliable sources as "editorials", a recurring problem at these articles of casting aspersions upon my use of reliable sources, by classifying them as "opeds"-- something that has been repeatedly called to ValenShephard's attention on his talk and article talk.) An indication of the POV-pushing behind his edit warring is that, after these three instances where he deletes text unfavorable to Chavez, he immediately adds text favorable. His editing goes only one-way.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Not necessary-- there are enormous discussions of the problems with his edit warring on his talk, and he has been warned many times and blocked twice. These diffs do not indicate four reverts to the same version; they indicate ongoing disruption, POV and edit warring from someone who has been blocked twice and with whom there has been significant discussion on his talk of his disruptive editing at numerous other articles.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see his entire talk page-- it's huge.

Comments:

For background, ValenShephard was blocked a few weeks ago for edit warring, and then unblocked on August 31 following lengthy discussion indicating he understood the problems with edit warring. Only a few days after, he engaged in another edit war at Hugo Chavez, which I did not report to this board, as I was still hoping to mentor him (see User_talk:ValenShephard/Archive_1 and User_talk:ValenShephard/Archive_1 in addition to the numerous complaints on his talk page about his edit warring, some now archived.) ValenShephard continues to edit war and edit by revert, even after two blocks and long discussions involving multiple editors. He made repeated promises on his talk that he would stop editing via revert and engaging in edit wars, but said continues (along with other disruption that is not the scope of this board, and will be addressed elsewhere). He has been amply warned about edit warning, and should understand by now that three reverts are not necessary for a definition of edit warring. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - this report doesn't surprise me at all, and in fact I find it rather sad. I'm borderline involved, only because I've been tracking this user's poor conduct for a while now. This user clearly didn't get the point after the last block; if I were the blocking admin, I would throw down a week-long block, and I think that's lenient. You'll notice that this user's conduct on pretty much every page he/she's on is to revert war and POV push. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See here for the long history of disruption, only at Venezuela articles, not including the last two weeks, and not including on other articles. He has the worst case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT I have ever encountered, and I've been expending hours daily trying to help mentor him, to no avail.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Only a couple of these could count as reverts, while the rest, as you can see by the diffs, are changes and tweaks. There was no clear consensus on talk, where sandy thought I was agreeing with her while I was agreeing with another editor (which I later explained). ValenShephard (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * John (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Thezob reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: 1 month)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 18:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) June 1
 * 2) June 2
 * 3) June 7
 * 4) June 15
 * 5) June 17
 * 6) July 7
 * 7) July 15
 * 8) 14:16,  9 September 2010  (edit summary: "Life descending over time is still a theory, it was theorized not established.")
 * 9) 03:32, 10 September 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 383839621 by Snowded (talk) yes really.")
 * 10) 17:45, 14 September 2010  (edit summary: "Discussion is irrelevant, there is too much bias there. It is still a theory, no matter how widely accepted it is.")


 * Diff of warning: here

Comments: Slow moving edit war. Appears to be only current interest in editing since June. He's been repeatedly asked to take his objections to the talk page in edit summaries on user talk discussions, which he's clearly seen but never done.

— Jess talk&#124;edits 18:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Between, "You people please stop changing my editing back. Thanks." and his last edit summary, he doesn't seem interested in working with community consensus: and it sure looks like a slow edit war to me. Sanctions appear to already be in the works.  I've warned him of this report (maybe he'll respond)... Doc9871 (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Blocked one month. Since he only edits a few days each month, a shorter block might not get his attention. His major interest on Wikipedia seems to be changing evolution from a fact to a theory. Appeals to consensus make no impression on him. If he agrees to change his approach, any admin may lift the block. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Cinéma_C reported by User:lontech (Result: 72h)
Page:

has violated 1RR per week on kosovo

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


 * 1) (cur | prev)  19:49, 13 September 2010 Cinéma C (talk | contribs) (113,250 bytes) (where was the sentence about the Albanian national awakening attributed? reverting + adding ref) (undo)
 * 2) (cur | prev) 11:04, 13 September 2010 Dejvid (talk | contribs) (112,928 bytes) (revert -a claim like "Kosovo became the crux of Serbia's historical culture, religion and national identity" needs to be attributed) (undo)
 * 3) (cur | prev) 02:28, 13 September 2010 Cinéma C (talk | contribs) (113,090 bytes) (If you're mentioning the Albanian national awakening, it's extremely biased not to mention what Kosovo means to Serbs.) (undo)

Diffs


 * 1)
 * 2)

The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo

Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages. All editors on this article are subject to 1RR parole per week and are required to discuss any content reversions on the article talk page. For full details, see [1]-- LONTECH    Talk  23:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

User:2tuntony reported by User:Therefore (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (removed by user, calling it "nonsense")

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User removed his initial concern about the statement in question was violations of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.

Comments:

This is all about this statement (the current version):"The reporter said this was evidence that an earlier remark by conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh, that the timing of the explosion implied it was blown up intentionally, was 'gaining traction'." This is a quotation from the USA Today source. first said it was WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and reverted. I countered that this was taken from the source and hence didn't violate either policy. He then said it was a problem with paraphrasing and reverted. I explained that that is generally what we do but rewrote it to be more verbatim. He reverted again saying the problem was NPOV (again, no argument, just declaration). I countered that NPOV allows for attributable statements such as this and asked that he please continue to discuss without further edit warring. He reverted a fourth time. I'm more than open to discuss this -- there may in fact be a good argument for not including it. But I'm at an impasse with the edit warring. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 02:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Too bad the discussion had to be derailed by violating 3RR. Next time, please stop edit warring while discussion is ongoing. Spike Wilbury (talk) 04:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Factocop reported by User:O Fenian (Result: blocked 24 hours)
Page: (and three others, see below)

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 can be seen on User talk:Factocop the editor has already been told by an administrator to discuss not edit war, but the edit warring continues. O Fenian (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * May as well add first, second, third and fourth reverts to previous version on Shane Duffy (soccer player) too, to save me making a new report. O Fenian (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Similarly first, second, third, fourth and fifth reverts to previous version on Republic of Ireland national football team. O Fenian (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * And first, second, third, fourth and fifth reverts to previous version (without the Irish name, I'm sure there's a more recent version too, but that's now academic since he's managed a fifth revert anyway) of City of Derry Airport. O Fenian (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I did raise a discussion in all of the pages that I edited but no one joined the conversation. I have learned my lesson an I will just report users upon any revert or edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factocop (talk • contribs) 08:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Thevazhathu reported by User:sreejithk2000 (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I feel that the IP 217.165.154.135 is the same as User:Thevazhathu and is constantly engaged in marking movies by Mohanlal as hit and movies by Mammootty as flop. Please see his edit history.

--Sreejith K (talk) 12:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Shuki reported by Nableezy(Result: Both parties restricted to 1RR until the end of the year)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 19:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 19:16, 15 September 2010  (edit summary: "Ariel is an Israeli city")
 * 2) 19:24, 15 September 2010  (edit summary: "rv settlement type = Israeli settlement, duh. It is a city, that is the settlement type. Israeli settlement is a label, not a settlement type.")
 * 3) 19:29, 15 September 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 385030419 by Nableezy (talk), it is in fact a city, something you can deny?")

Shuki has made 3 quick reverts on the article on the Israeli settlement of Ariel. An RFC had been conducted on what to use as the primary description of Israeli settlements which resulted in no consensus but a loose consensus that we will retain the original primary description in current articles. The description in Ariel is "Israeli settlement". The infobox in this article had been an Israel specific infobox and had no "settlement type" parameter. This has recently been changed to the standard settlement infobox. I added "Israeli settlement" as the "settlement type" to the infobox. Shuki removed that and changed it to just city. I re-added settlement but kept city, Shuki reverted again. I then attempted to mirror how the original infobox looked which included neither "city" nor "settlement" and Shuki reverted that as well. I opened a talk page discussion, Shuki responds with the accusation that I am on a "monthly witch-hunt to dehumanize all Jewish populated places" by calling Israeli settlements "Israeli settlements". I realize that Shuki has "only" made 3 reverts, but as I do not wish to exceed 1 revert and be blocked as well I have come here instead of continue the edit-war.  nableezy  - 19:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC) To edit war at least 2 editors are required. user:Nableezy made 4 reverts himself
 * Comments by Mbz1.
 * 1) ;
 * 2)
 * 3) ;
 * 4) ;--Mbz1 (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That simply is not true. The first edit is not a revert, it is just an edit. The same is true for the second edit, which is also contiguous with the first edit. No prior version of the article had that formulation, it is by definition not a revert. The third edit is likewise not a revert, it was an attempt at compromise by including both what Shuki argued for and what I argued for (which Shuki could not accept). The last edit is also not a revert, no version of the article had that formulation. What version of the article was I reverting to Mbz1? I tried multiple different formulations without making reverts, Shuki just insisted on his or her favored formulation.  nableezy  - 20:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * no matter what if it's a revert or not (i didn't understand your explanations of why it's not, but maybe i just don't know exact specific rules about revert)... it is still edit warring from you too. maybe it would be smartest for you to withdraw this complaint because probably you will just get punished from it LibiBamizrach (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I simply read what you yourself wrote in this very thread just above. You wrote: "but as I do not wish to exceed 1 revert and be blocked as well I have come here instead of continue the edit-war". For the last 2 days you made 5 edits on Ariel (city). I brought up 4 of them, and you're saying they were not reverts. So on the one hand you admitting that you were edit-warring and were afraid to get blocked for that, on the other hand you're claiming that none of your 4 out of 5 edits I referred to were reverts. Strange.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Me attempting different possible formulations is not edit-warring and if Shuki had attempted something other than just repeatedly going back to the same version that he or she supported we would not be here. Instead, for any edit I attempted to make Shuki just reverted. I was not reverting so I was not edit-warring. None of the edits you referenced are reverts, they were all edits. Even when I kept what Shuki wanted to include in one of the edits you list, Shuki still performed a straight revert. And really, why are you here? What does this have to do with you?  nableezy  - 21:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But since you seem confused, let me break this down for you:
 * 19:16, 15 September 2010 is a revert of this edit.
 * 19:24, 15 September 2010 is a revert of this edit
 * 19:29, 15 September 2010 is a revert of this edit
 * In each of the reverts Shuki reverses another edit and restores the line to a prior version. In none of the edits that you list do I restore the line to a prior version. Each version is new, they are edits, not reverts.  nableezy  - 21:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that this is another one of Nableezy's Pot calling the kettle black reports. I've put together a table about Nableezy implicating himself here User talk:Shuki. Nableezy has been warned many times for bringing up these frivolous accusations, especially when he is an active part in them. This one in particular seems to be a rehash of his failed settlement RfC. This non-collaborative editor is interested only in inserting his negative POV into articles and shows little sign of improving WP with adding real information and expanding articles. --Shuki (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments by Shuki
 * So Nableezy set up an RfC, which didn't establish a consensus that everyone could accept, but nonetheless he did at least try dispute resolution. In my book thats better than not trying. What is needed is another attempt to establish a consensus, not yet more name calling and edit warring. PhilKnight (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, he has one little star to his recognition and many black stains like this one in which he ignores the DR and tries to push his POV as if we forgot the past. See his edits at Susya as well. He has nothing better to do, no information to add and expand, and merely hangs around WP in order to change labels and articles lead paragraphs. He is warned many times from admins, and the warnings never add up to anything from the admins. I am not interested in committing WP suicide like he is and taking others with him. The vast majority of POV editors, give up their battleground mentality, loosen up, and learn to collaborate meaning allowing opposing POV into articles and accepting others, some even become admins years later. Nableezy has not changed his attitude since he started editing on WP. This 'primary descriptor' claim is so lame, there was a loose consensus to just leave the articles alone. What does handling infoboxes add to making WP a better place? --Shuki (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't suppose anyone noticed the first bullet at the top of this page requesting that disputes not be continued here? Cut the meta-discussion please. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure we know this, but it'd be best to reply that to Nableezy and then warn him again for dragging this to the noticeboards, again. --Shuki (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I was directing that to both of you. I've asked Stifle to comment here and possibly take action, since he seems to have familiarity with your problems. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've restricted Nableezy and Shuki to 1RR until December 31 for all articles which relate to Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Golan Heights. PhilKnight (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Good call. Does that close out this report, then? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. PhilKnight (talk) 00:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami and User:Taivo reported by User:Pmanderson (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * Users being reported:

Version reverted to: 23:01 14 September (please note that this is itself the product of reversion by Taivo) Taivo:
 * 04:36 September 15
 * 21:39 A total reversion to restore part of a text.
 * 21:43
 * 23:04

Warned Taivo

Kwami:
 * 18:15
 * 20:52
 * 20:53
 * 21:01
 * undone 21:03; demonstrating knowledge of 3RR; I would be satisfied if this had ended here.
 * 22:04 partial revert.

Warned Kwami

For discussion of the differences, see the entire talk page. These two have consistently refused to consider or tolerate modification of this article; it was protected, on 31 August, because of their activities. Disagreements with their version by Radagast, Wareh, Akhilleus, McZeus (user name Amphiontryoniades) Cynwolfe and others will also be found there - but nobody except me is willing to actually challenge their abuse and revert-warring.

I have been - partly because I have the sources available to me - responsible for these edits. I believe every edit - with perhaps two exceptions - has been a novel text; but I am prepared to stop editing and go elsewhere if asked. I would be prepared to experiment with a topic ban - it is possible that they will abide by it. If they are gone, this may possibly become an article which is based on sources, not preconceived theories, and is comprehensible to common usage. As I have already said, if they are warned away from the article, I will stay away anyway to see what happens. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This complaint is frivolous. PManderson has done everything in his power to escalate this conflict rather than to resolve it. It is evident from the diffs provided by Pmanderson that he has in fact introduced 8 different edits to the article that he knew were unacceptable to his coeditors each of which have been reverted (some of them blanking of sections or remobval of sources). There is as such no breaking of the 3rr as each revert is of different content. This looks like a completely deliberate and calculated strategy from Pmanderson to provoke each of the other editors into reverting 4 times (each time reverting different content) and then accusing. He was at no risk himself since each edit he introduced was different and so he did not revert to his own version, but instead introduce new content or blank a section. A blatant example fo gaming the system and wikilayering. I have protected a version of the page from a month ago before the dispute began and I would advise strongly against unprotecting untill the participants begin to work collaboratively towards solving the problem instead of simply causing eachother mutual grievances.·Maunus· ƛ · 00:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have made every effort to make any change in a widely disliked, inaccurate article, which misrepresents its sources. Wareh, Akhilleus, McZeus, Radagast, Cynwolfe, and others have objected to the article; I have tried to change it - and have met with days of  revert war. Others have met with insult and lies - as the talk page will show. Taivo and Kwami are incapable of editing cooperatively with anyone but each other. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)First, PMAnderson is lying about why the article was protected. It was protected because of his actions reported here, here, and here.  Second, this revert was to restore vandalism on PMAnderson's part (blanking of a section without consensus).  Third, none of my reverts are the same thing; WP:3RR only applies to reverting the same thing three times in 24 hours.  Fourth, just yesterday, I warned PMAnderson about 3RR here, but didn't report him at that time.  There is an open AN/I case against PMAnderson's incivility here.  Fifth, PMAnderson massively overstates the support he has for his POV.  Sixth, read the edit history and you will find that I have made many positive contributions to both the discussion and the text and PMAnderson's claims are grossly overstated.  --Taivo (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The protection request does not show any sign that it was because of my actions; indeed I asked for it.


 * WP:3RR covers all reverts on the same article - precisely to make this sort of refusal of all changes impractical.


 * First I've heard of the ANI case; it is traditional to notify the subject.


 * The extent and the vehemence of the objections to Taivo and Kwami's version vary, but support for it is limited to Kwami and Taivo. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I was about to post on your Talk Page about the AN/I case when I saw this and responded here first. You are completely wrong about your characterization of support.  Most of the editors on your list of "supporters" have been neutral.  None of the others except Radagast has ever offered unqualified support for your position.  You conveniently ignore other editors, such as Erutuon and MarkNutley who have more fully supported Kwami and myself.  As you consistently exaggerate to overstate your case on the Talk Page, you consistently minimize in order to understate the evidence that Kwami and I have mustered.  --Taivo (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to rehash things here. Any other admin looking at the page history can see Maunus's point. I mean, Sep's edit warring and disruptive edits over 24 hrs denying the aorist is an aspect or asserting that it's a tense are . That doesn't count multiple pointy or dickish taggings or multiple reverts of other changes to the article, which would double the number. — kwami (talk) 01:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The page has been protected by Maunus and hopefully that will stop the edit warring. I'm loathe to block potential participants in the ensuing discussion, and I think it would be unfair to block these two now when I declined to block PMAnderson previously. This extended content dispute simply has to stop rearing its head here. This board isn't the place to discuss topic bans and whatnot. Spike Wilbury (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Nyisnotbad reported by User:Medeis (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

The same edit was made four times on the twelfth, when he was warned after the third edit, and twice so far today.

prior reversions Sep 12 current reversions
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Several suggestions have been made, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Armenian_language#Iranian_theory

Comments:

The page is semi-protected because it is subject to (usually Armenian) nationalist POV editting. In this case the editor, with a history of Iranian nationalist POV disputes, is adding a long outdated and now fringe POV, that Armenian is a branch of Iranian. Due to a lack of Western familiarity with the language, this theory was held for a few decades, from the beginning of serious Indo-European studies circa 1827, until study by experts conclusively proved Armenian to be its own independent language family in the 1870's. No mainstream linguist now holds the view that Armenian is a dialect of Iranian.

Nyisnotbad has repeatedly, and without discussion on the talk page, made the same edit to present this fringe theory as fact. He cites Franz Bopp, who died in 1867. He falsely cites the recently deceased Winfred Lehmann, author of a reader of 19th century of historical linguistics, who holds Armenian to be a separate branch between Iranian and Slavic as supporting the theory.

The editor has a history of nationalist POV disputes.

He has been advised of the outdated and false nature of his evidence.

He has been advised repeated from the beginning that he provide the theory as a minority view, if he attributes it a modern notable scholar who holds it.

The editor has been warned repeatedly for this and prior disputes.

He refuses to discuss the matter on the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 00:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC) == User:Polaron and User:Doncram reported by The Thing  //  Talk  //  Contribs  (Result: Polaron blocked 72h) ==
 * Per the editor's previous blocks and the large number of reverts. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Page:

User being reported: and

Time reported: 16:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Doncram:
 * 1) 16:06, 14 September 2010  (edit summary: "remove unsupported neighborhood assertions, per Talk")
 * 2) 16:36, 14 September 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 384811843 by Polaron (talk).  reinstate edit explained at Talk. Talk page edit hit a second or two later than P's reversion.")

Polaron:


 * 1) 16:10, 14 September 2010  (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 384322082 by Polaron; can you point out which ones are wrong?. (TW)")
 * 2) 16:39, 14 September 2010  (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 384811843 by Polaron; using boundaries in http://www.city-data.com/city/Stamford-Connecticut.html. (TW)")

Comments:

Users are continuing to edit war after both recently receiving 48-hours blocks. -- The Thing  //  Talk  //  Contribs  16:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Belligerents notified . --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The edit warring seems to have stopped with just 2 reverts, however since they were recently blocked, and there still happens to be a previous report at the very top of this page, it seems this isn't an isolated incident. It might be prudent to keep watching and make sure things don't get out of hand. The Thing  //  Talk  //  Contribs  18:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Polaron for 72h. I do not buy the suggestion that Doncram is equally to blame here. In this reported article as well as the Greenwich example, Polaron is violating the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. Additionally, WP:V states that the burden of evidence is on the person trying to add or restore information. Suggest a possible voluntary 1RR restriction for one or all parties if the behavior patterns continue. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) Oh, yes, the previous discussion is above, currently at (update: archived here)  Okay, well, please consider this carefully and look for differences in behavior.  This article and similar National Register of Historic Places listings in Greenwich, Connecticut are new list-articles which i just split out from National Register of Historic Places listings in Fairfield County, Connecticut, which I have been developing in detail over many months, in fact as part of a WP:CONN and WP:NRHP co-sponsored article development drive.  At each of their Talk pages, I posted about a problem of unsourced info.  Polaron declined explicitly at the Stamford talk page to address.  I removed the unsourced info in both, which is justified by wikipedia policy:  unsourced information can and should be challenged and removed.  Considering that P had not seen my last Talk page edit, in which i explained the removal, i chose to call attention to that and remove it once more in an edit.  I don't think you have to judge that as edit warring by me.  P simply re-adds.  Also, not yet noted above, P never commented at the Talk but re-added similar in this edit using Twinkle at the Greenwich article.
 * This is a regular pattern: often butting in on an article where I am doing active, productive development, P takes a position and uses Twinkle and minimal edit summary statements to enforce his view. The way it could go forward normally with P is that i or other frustrated editors post more and more at a Talk page, and P may or may not deign to come out with little bits of explanations.  But the problem is basic, that unsourced info should not be added, and the behavior is entrenched.  P has been cautioned about this many times by many other editors.  Also, I had already requested that editor EdJohnston who imposed the 48 hour blocks, take a look.  In my comment there i characterized P's patterns too, as either not responding (as applies in the Greenwich case where he also restored unsourced info) or as responding minimally and unsatisfactorily (as applies in the Stamford case).
 * I would like to develop these two list-articles as i have been doing with the Fairfield one, and now i am frustrated again with dealing with the appearance of edit warring. I consider it a lot more like removal of vandalism.  I think the right thing to do is to delete the unsourced assertions, and I would like to have the support of other editors in doing that.  EdJohnston, Acroterion, Orlady are some administrator editors who are familiar with much of the history.  In the last ANI discussion, another editor asked: what am I or other editors supposed to do, given P's behavior? --doncram (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. In followup four(!) requests to be unblocked at P's talk page, in this diff, P indicates he does not believe his reversion edits were edit warring in this case and in a List of countries by population article unrelated to me.  I am 100% sure that this is not over. --doncram (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I see in this diff that Polaron, under a new user name, is right now editing! The new account was created a few hours after P's block started, and there's another indication or two that it is he. --doncram (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please open a sock puppet investigation, as this is not obvious enough with just a brief glance. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, did so, with some more explanation. --doncram (talk) 04:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * What now? Polaron chose not to comment at his Talk page, and was found to be using a sockpuppet by the investigation, and the account was blocked.  Another new account opened after i noted his continuing editing here, was identified as a probable sockpuppet, and that was blocked too.  It occurs to me also that P may have edited during the previous 48 hour block, too.  P's 72 hour block has now expired and he commented at the sockpuppet investigation, with a claim that i don't want to comment about yet, as well as returning to one of the articles mentioned in the block appeals discussion at his Talk page to make a reversion edit.  The investigation page is labelled as an archive, and has been labelled closed, and there is no further immediate need to involve checkusers.  Perhaps P should make some statement here. --doncram (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently you were hoping that Polaron would be indefinitely blocked (or even banned) for sockpuppetry, but Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Users don't get indefinite blocks for one-time "offenses". The sockpuppet accounts were blocked indefinitely, but Polaron is able to use the main account now that his block has expired. --Orlady (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And I was being so impressed that you were just staying out of this one, Orlady. Apparently you just couldn't help yourself.  Thanks for another one of your oh so enlightening "answers".  And, since when do you not consider sock-puppetry an "offense"?  Or, are you seriously implying that you don't consider Polaron guilty of it?  Because, regardless of for whom or for what reasons, Polaron evaded a block, created a new account and returned to pages he routinely edits to make the same sort of reverting edits that are his norm.  So, I'll ask a little more precisely than Doncram did, is blocking really such an empty "punishment" that you can edit throughout your block, be discovered and the only further consequence is the blocking of the sockpuppet?  I would have thought that the original term of the block would have to be served.  It wasn't.  I would think his block time would at least have to be extended by the time he spent editing under other names. Lvklock (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit-war policy discussion
Hi, all. I hope it won't be considered an improper use of this board if I inform people here of a current thread by the name "What's a revert?" in progress at AN, and suggest that the participation of admins here ( experts in answering the question in actual practice on a daily basis, afer all ) would be beneficial. No dispute involved, btw, just a request for admins to discuss the guidelines they use in actual practice and give their opinions on the correct interpretation of our existing policies, especially as they apply to hotly-contested articles. Best, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 05:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

User:TruckCard reported by User:Rjanag (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:

TC has also edit-warred over other edits and across other pages. On this same page:
 * previous version reverted to:
 * revert 1: (totally unexplained)
 * revert 2: (totally unexplained)

On another page:
 * prev version:
 * revert 1: (reverting  this) (unexplained, no edit summary)
 * revert 2: (unexplained, no edit summary)

On another page:
 * prev version
 * revert 1: (unexplained)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (regarding the move edit warring);  (regarding others)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Same as talk page link; see also Talk:National identity cards in China regarding that page

Comments: It should be clear that TruckCard is engaging in edit-warring behavior across multiple articles, mainly by making entirely unexplained reverts (either with no edit summary or with machine summaries) in places where he already knows the edit is controversial. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

User:74.226.117.61 reported by User:Stonemason89 (Result: Semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: ; note, this edit is from a different IP, which geolocates to the same city (Dyersburg, Tennessee), and so is quite obviously the same person. 3RR restrictions apply to editors, not IP addresses.
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Since both this IP and this one appear to be the same person, they should both receive a block. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Since the edit warring is coming from IPs, I'm semi-protecting. Trying a bit longer since it's coming off several shorter terms of semi-protection for vandalism. We are definitely dealing with a dynamic IP in this case and they could very well come back with something different in the morning. Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

User:122.107.154.80 reported by User:Richwales (Result: 48h)
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: N/A

Comments:

This IP user is repeatedly inserting a piece of inappropriate editorializing into the Pantyhose article. He has ignored requests to stop on the IP address's talk page. Richwales (talk · contribs) 08:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * How about, "Re-inserting complete and utter 'bullplop', unreferenced original research"? Page protection for a minute? Or block the IP SPA for a minute longer instead?  This is why I'm just a "commentator"... Doc9871 (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Enok and User:Mercenary2k reported by User:Macwhiz (Result: Both blocked for 24 hours, update: page protected)
Page:

User being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:

Several-day history of edit-warring on the page, but WP:3RR violated thus:

Enok

 * 1) 03:50, 15 September 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 384897106 by Brainlara73 (talk) globalfire.com is an amateur website")
 * 2) 16:36, 15 September 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 384971867 by 88.244.86.99 (talk) Reverting vandalism")
 * 3) 19:17, 15 September 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 385028317 by 119.154.58.177 (talk) Reverting vandalism")
 * 4) 01:11, 16 September 2010  (edit summary: "see discussion")
 * 5) 01:23, 16 September 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 385087724 by Mercenary2k (talk) discussion ongoing")
 * 6) 01:34, 16 September 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 385089007 by Mercenary2k (talk) discussion ongoing")
 * 7) 01:55, 16 September 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 385090700 by Mercenary2k (talk) discussion ongoing")
 * 8) 02:00, 16 September 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 385093145 by Mercenary2k (talk) discussion ongoing")
 * 9) 02:10, 16 September 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 385093920 by Mercenary2k (talk) discussion ongoing")
 * 10) 02:19, 16 September 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 385095216 by Mercenary2k (talk) discussion ongoing")

Mercenary2k

 * 1) 23:03, 15 September 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 23:08, 15 September 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 23:10, 15 September 2010  (edit summary: "added pakistani reserve forces.....stop making it Zero...just because it does not exist in that article doesnt make it zero")
 * 4) 23:19, 15 September 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 01:21, 16 September 2010  (edit summary: "removed vandalism...added pakistani reserve forces...")
 * 6) 01:30, 16 September 2010  (edit summary: "adding reserves back")
 * 7) 01:43, 16 September 2010  (edit summary: "reverse nonsense...already provided two citations about pakistani reserve forces...541,000 didnt vanish overnight")
 * 8) 02:00, 16 September 2010  (edit summary: "Discussion Done. 3 reputable citations state pakistani reserve forces....numbers stay")
 * 9) 02:05, 16 September 2010  (edit summary: "revert nonsense")
 * 10) 02:13, 16 September 2010  (edit summary: "added pakistani reserve forces")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: but see entire talk discussion at talk:List of countries by number of troops

Comments:

Editor Enok seems to be engaging in a long-term pattern of tendentious editing on this page. There are a lot of reverts from this user. He does not appear to be receptive to consensus-building. A third opinion was sought, but the 3O folks don't seem to want to touch this one with a ten-foot pole, and I can't blame them. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I will continue to watch the page to limit further disruption.-- Kubigula (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * &mdash; they resumed edit warring after the blocks expired. -- slakr \ talk / 05:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

User:68.237.216.187 reported by User:Diannaa (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * IP is edit warring to include WP:Weasel words in the article and posting rants on my talk page and that of another user.


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

Rants: Histories: , You can see he posts a modification to his talk page post every few seconds. Diffs: ,

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

-- Diannaa (Talk) 22:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Courcelles 23:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I had a similar experience in April with, who is probably the same person. -- Diannaa (Talk) 23:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: – 22:03, September 19, 2010
 * 2nd revert: – 22:09, September 19, 2010
 * 3rd revert: – 22:16, September 19, 2010
 * 4th revert: – 06:59, September 20, 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 22:27, September 19, 2010

Attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Jet_engine

Comments:

Editor Lsorin does not appear to accept that there are serious doubts raised by expert sources which deny Henri Coandă's claim to being the first jet engine inventor in 1910. Lsorin has been putting Coandă's claim back into a number of related articles, placing them as established facts, even though there is RfC discussion being carried out at Talk:Coandă-1910 regarding how the article should present the conflicting expert sources. Editor Lsorin appears to wish for a version of events that is free from conflicting expert sources, one that contains only the version told by Coandă himself in the 1950s and '60s, but what we have been discussing at the RfC is that both versions must be told, and how to do so. Binksternet (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Svrznik reported by User:Laveol (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 13:30, 20 September
 * 2nd revert: 13:59, 20 September
 * 3rd revert: 16:57, 20 September
 * 4th revert: 19:15, 20 September

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Note a couple of things when reviewing this. The user admitted that the IP from which the last revert was performed was actually him (more info here). The warning (I couldn't post a diff as it was the first edit on that talkpage) was posted on the 16 September. You'll see the user performing multiple reverts each day between the 15 and 19 of September. Plus he spend a whole day playing with a a featured article, including performing some awkward moves. I get the feeling this is actually a single-purpose account. Besides mind that the account was created just a few days after a similarly disruptive user was blocked. His whole IP range (cause he edited from a floating IP) was blocked as well. Now this editor appeared and Geolocate tracks his IP to the same village of Arachinovo. I suspected he might be the same person or at least a meat-puppet as he edit-wars in the same scope and performs similar moves and reverts. -- L a v e o l  T 19:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

User:117Avenue reported by User:Bdell555 (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1st revert: 22:31, 20 September 2010
 * 2nd revert: 23:08, 20 September 2010
 * 3rd revert: 23:31, 20 September 2010
 * 4th revert: 00:31, 21 September 2010

Comments:

Four reverts in two hours in effort to delete all information about candidates in an election, albeit selectively in the sense that the wikilinking to the Wikipedia articles for some candidates was preserved. Mass deletion additionally "hid" by misleading edit summaries (eg "more sites"), in my view. Although there has been some discussion here, user declined invitation to take up matter on Talk page. Editor has been around long enough (has autopatrolled rights), a 3RR warning would presumably just insult someone who is presumably familiar with policy.Bdell555 (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen, dispute resolution is down the hall to the left. If you continue this once the page is unlocked, I'll block both of you for edit warring. Spike Wilbury (talk) 01:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It was not my intention to hide it in the edit summaries, had Bdell555 not been there, it would have made sense. I was simply attempting to prevent promotion, and maintain the links to the campaign sites, but if it is common practice to describe the candidates, then I'll have to comply. 117Avenue (talk) 02:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it common practice to write a person's opinion on a talk page? 117Avenue (talk) 05:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not one of that nature - absolutely not. It has nothing to do with the article content, which is what that talk page is for... Doc9871 (talk) 05:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I cited several Wikipedia policies supporting inclusion of the content, some of which I identified. The deletion was too broad to identify every sentence that 117Avenue deleted.  117Avenue and, frankly, the entire community of editors is invited to provide counter-arguments (that support deletion).  The deference issue appears relevant, since even in this case there is a clear 3RR violation and the decision has been made to protect the page for days under 117Avenue's preferred rendering.  I have a hard time understanding why an editor who declines to take the edit warring to a Talk page is being encouraged to not do so, and not instead being referred to, say, Talk_page_guidelines.  If we could have a little more discussion where policy calls for discussion (on the article's Talk page), and a little less opinion, I think that would help resolve the problem.Bdell555 (talk) 05:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not discussing another editor's behavior. Content disputes are meant to be civilly discussed on talk page articles, and it is not proper to post what you did concerning 117Avenue's conduct.  Focus on the content, and not the editor, on article talk pages... Doc9871 (talk) 05:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * At issue is the editor's arguments, or more precisely the absence thereof, for deleting the article content at issue. I would go on about confusing editors with their arguments but note the instructions above: "Do not continue a dispute on this page."Bdell555 (talk) 05:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct. Continue the content dispute on the article's talk page.  The content dispute, not the editor dispute.  Stick to the content only.  For reporting issues concerning an editor's behavior, AN/I is where you're supposed to go as a last resort, if you two simply cannot collaborate effectively.  You need to learn to edit harmoniously, as it's a community project... Doc9871 (talk) 06:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, especially about the "last resort" part. I've been a Wikipedia editor for more than 5 years editing controversial articles and this is the first time I felt the matter had risen to the level of requiring admin notification.Bdell555 (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Teacherbrock reported by Avi (talk) (Result: 24 h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 04:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Version (1st Set) being reverted to: 09:10, September 20, 2010 Version (2nd Set) being reverted to: 00:57, 21 September 2010


 * 1) 14:34, 20 September 2010 (Set 1)
 * 2) 14:50, 20 September 2010 (Set 1)
 * 3) 21:38, 20 September 2010 (Set 1)
 * 4) 01:03, 21 September 2010 (Set 2)
 * 5) 01:31, 21 September 2010 (Set 2)


 * Diff of warning: here

While there were three reverts of one version and two of another, there have been more than 4 reverts in the period. Moreover, User:Teacherbrock has had his edits reverted as against policy (OR, for example) and practice by multiple editors and has persisted in trying to push a particular POV on the article even after explanations on the articles talk page and his user page. -- Avi (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My first report dealt with at AN3, feel free to change without asking if you feel this isn't correct. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 04:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

User:McAusten reported by User:Aspirex (Result: warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Link to warning (sent immediately prior to this report):

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I have also twice attempted to open dialogue directly through the user's talk page, but on both occasions my message has been deleted without discussion.
 * Diff of first attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page:
 * Diff of revert of this attempt:
 * Diff of second attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page:
 * Diff of revert of this attempt:

Comments:

McAusten's talk page shows a history of ignoring requests and warnings from other editors, including a refusal to use edit summaries. Aspirex (talk) 06:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * - 2/0 (cont.) 12:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

User:79.107.161.144 reported by User:Sthenel (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

This anon user has a long history of edit warring, listed in the ANI here.
 * Will look into the rest of it shortly; possibly a period of semi-protection will cause him to get bored and find a new hobby. Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

User:74.194.226.71 reported by Drrll (talk) (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 22:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 17:40, 21 September 2010  (edit summary: "Comment was purely partisan, purely opinion and has no place here.")
 * 2) 17:54, 21 September 2010  (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
 * 3) 18:00, 21 September 2010  (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
 * 4) 18:02, 21 September 2010  (edit summary: "See Discussion. The objectivity and accuracy of the article are questioned. Data unsourced.")
 * 5) 18:29, 21 September 2010  (edit summary: "Information on source and the "we are progressives" quote is unverifiable. Links to supposed sources are broken or inaccurate.")
 * 6) 20:14, 21 September 2010  (edit summary: "/* Politics */  No source. Poor link")
 * 7) 20:36, 21 September 2010  (edit summary: "/* Politics */")


 * Diff of warning: here

Comments: Note that this user also apparently uses User:99.162.120.212 and had 3 reverts in the same time frame with that address. I gave the user 2 warnings on his Talk page. His response was to delete the warnings, promise that he could spoof his address, and continue to edit war (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:74.194.226.71&diff=386167235&oldid=386166220). He did use the article's Talk page under both addresses. (This is my first report)

—Drrll (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * . Neither editor is innocent on this front - both were revert warring. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

User:217.157.202.160 reported by User:Kebeta (Result:warned, placed on parole)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Comments:

I was going to warn the user on his talk page, but I found this message where he insulted whole nation - so I give up. Maybe I am reporting on the wrong page - vandalism? Kebeta (talk) 10:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * User has additionally been placed on revert parole for Balkans related articles, as I've noted on the talk page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Db54 reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: 24 h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: (fourth revert appears to be botched, though still a violation; edit summary refers to the general dispute)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: (see also discussion on my talk page  and the discussions with Dismas on the Db54 talk page, which were pretty fruitless, as Dismas ended up making the same revert I've made, just a few days earlier.

Comments:

This is pretty straightforward. Db54 repeatedly cuts-and-pastes a big block of copyrighted advertising/promotional text from the article subject's website (NSFW, exact text just below flag icon), claiming on my talk page to be a member of the article subject's "inner circle." Obvious copyvio, so my reverts exempt from 3RR, to say nothing of the BLP, RS, and advertising violations and the COI issues. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not pretty straightforward when Wolfowitz out of nowhere starts removing information based on whim and cites erroneous violations. S/He seems to have a style for making edits without warning on a number of pages. THe information had been there for some time and had been worked on so it related to the Subjects - History and an abundance and not all that are industry standards and a number of references. Furthermore, there was ABSOLUTELY NO ADVERTISING or PROMOTIONAL in any of the information as s/he is claiming. There is also no copyright violation as he claims either. He certainly had no right to suspend editing privileges. The prior references already referred to her website as does her Offical Website entry under her picture. To ensure her background was accurate what better way to have a background then right from the Living Person's mouth as part of her biography. There was no promotional nor sales nor any visit the website references. Also, it was a small subset ( not a big block as claimed) of 2 paragraphs from her own biography. What better source is there?

To quote the LIVING PERSON; "How strange the page is almost empty, looks like someone stripped it! The link to the yahoo group is wrong, and there are barely any other links. there are a million interviews and articles on avn, but they don't list any of them... what a mess!" to me in a thread on her website where I have been a member for sometime as well as keep in touch with her and her manager husband when it comes to Wikpedia.

Frankly Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz needs to be reigned in and sanctioned for his inappropriate actions. His assumption on previous discussions was misrepresented as well. Db54 (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just incase anyone is wondering, even though Hullaballoo Wolfowitz did just as much reverting, removing copyright violations is an exception to 3RR where there is no edit war. Courcelles 23:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Hemant.india reported by User:Qwyrxian (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: --under User:Free.traffic
 * 2nd revert: as User:122.175.128.157
 * 3rd revert: as User:122.175.128.157
 * 4th revert: as User:122.175.128.157
 * 5th revert: as User:122.175.128.157
 * 6th revert: as User:Hemant.india
 * followed by 3 more of the same additions by User:Hemant.india, and then one more by User:122.175.128.157.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Attempted to resolve at user's talk page; see User Talk:Hemant.india.

Comments: Please note that I am attempting to report all 3 accounts of the same user here--User:Hemant.india, User:122.175.128.157, and User:Free.traffic. These are clearly all the same editor. I don't know if the user is aware of our policies on using multiple accounts or not, as user is not responding to any messages on talk page. User was explicitly told of this policy at. Please let me know if I need to also handle this through WP:SPI. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Second registered account blocked indefinitely for socking. Magog the Ogre (talk)

User:95.95.92.177 reported by -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 16:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 23:38, 20 September 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 385831474 by Red Avenged (talk)")
 * 2) 01:47, 21 September 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 386012176 by 85.246.196.59 (talk)")
 * 3) 01:52, 21 September 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 386026616 by 85.246.196.59 (talk) Spam")
 * 4) 02:09, 21 September 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 386027592 by Red Avenged (talk) Spam")
 * 5) 02:36, 21 September 2010  (edit summary: "Spam!! The user Red Avenged  has removed information (sustained with source) without any support.")
 * 6) 14:58, 21 September 2010  (edit summary: "Spam again!!")
 * 7) 15:53, 23 September 2010  (edit summary: "Correction of two words and removal information without sustention. Attention to spam!!")


 * Diff of warning: here

Two users were edit warring, and I warned them both to stop and to discuss it on the article Talk page. One of them, User:Red Avenged, has attempted to discuss it, but this one has not and has carried on with the war - not a technical 3RR today (23rd), but there was on 21st, and they're certainly continuing the war in an uncooperative manner.

—-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

User:85.93.203.235 reported by User:Bsherr (Result: 24h)
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: Talk:Jerusalem

Comments:

Anonymous user seems purposefully intent on not using talk page and continuing to edit war. --Bsherr (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

User:FellGleaming reported by User:MastCell (Result: 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 17:37, 21 September 2010


 * 1st revert: 02:53, 23 September 2010 (undoes this preceding edit, in part)
 * 2nd revert: 05:04, 23 September 2010 (reverts immediately preceding edit)
 * 3rd revert: 18:48, 23 September 2010 (removes material from this preceding edit)
 * 4th revert: 22:29, 23 September 2010 (reverts immediately preceding edit)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Editor has had numerous past 3RR warnings, and has 2 previous blocks for edit-warring

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See many kb of discussion at Talk:Christine O'Donnell

Comments:

Nothing further; this looks like a clear 3RR violation to me, from an editor with a history of the same. While I have not edited Christine O'Donnell, I have encountered on other articles and so am recusing to bring this here rather than handling it myself. MastCell Talk 23:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Alas - the issue of what is, and is not, "contentious" material in a WP:BLP must be examined. In this case, it appears that real BLP issues are involved, and should be sorted out on the article talk page and not here. See also et seq. Collect (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see a BLP exemption asserted in these edits, nor do I see any rational basis for such an exemption. FellGleaming's editing record on political BLPs from the other "side" is pretty poor, but regardless, this is pretty much straight-up edit-warring without any clear-cut exemptions or fig leaves. MastCell Talk 00:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This situation is marginally related to BLP; it's mostly just about POV edit warring under the cover of edit summaries like "See talk". That is not a license to revert anyone whose edit you don't care for. Spike Wilbury (talk) 02:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

User:TraviaNightmare reported by User:Qwyrxian (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Editor is reverting to a few different versions (as there have been intervening, unrelated edits). All of the reversions involve a content dispute about the lead.


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User has a battlefield mentality. Note, for instance, the edit summary of his response on the talk page. User has engaged in personal attacks as well (you can see my talk page for my discussion with the user about this, although it's quite long and not such fun reading. While I'm not sure it's really going to help, perhaps a short break might wake some sense into this user (at least by showing him/her that policies really do have to be followed). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Darkstar1st reported by Yworo (talk) (Result: Blocked for 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 15:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


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

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


 * 1) 12:56, 24 September 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "rv       did you read the source?:a)   a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action b): a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles")
 * 2) 15:03, 24 September 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 386754728 by N6n (talk)rv vandalism   read the source, it is Libertarianism.")
 * 3) 15:10, 24 September 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "thank you for clarify Lota, i have added the corrected text")
 * 4) 15:31, 24 September 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "vandalism.  restoring half of the sourced text from the definition deleted by mark")
 * 5) 15:34, 24 September 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 386759774 by Yworo (talk)restoring vandalism.")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Yworo (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Another diff (original insertion): The text was originally inserted by User:Darkstar1st which the original poster has not listed. N6n (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I do not think darkstar has purposefully editwarred here, For the record i had not meant to remove any text when i did one of those edits, darkstar restoring accidentally removed content should not count as a revert. I would also like to point out this comment by the user bringing this complaint mark nutley (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment This is discussed in this thread on Talk:Libertarianism: A related case is already in Meditation:.
 * User:Darkstar1st wants to add the bit about libertarianism being determined and limited by "political parties" (which means the Libertarian Party, as far as I understand.) N6n (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Clear edit-warring. Identifying others edits as "vandalism" is an aggravating factor. Mkativerata (talk) 16:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Evlekis reported by User:Lontech (Result: declined)
Page:

User being reported:

has violated 1RR per week on kosovo

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


 * 1) (cur | prev)  21:29, 23 September 2010 Evlekis (talk | contribs) m (113,907 bytes) (Reverted edits by Lontech (talk) to last version by H3llBot)
 * 2) (cur | prev) 20:01, 23 September 2010 Lontech (talk | contribs) (113,566 bytes) (rv. pov)
 * 3) (cur | prev) 22:37, 21 September 2010 H3llBot (talk | contribs) m (113,907 bytes) (BOT: Checking dead links; Added 3 archived Wayback links, Marked 2 links with )
 * 4) (cur | prev) 18:29, 18 September 2010 Evlekis (talk | contribs) (113,395 bytes) (amend text to sound less POV and more in line with source)
 * 5) (cur | prev) 18:21, 18 September 2010 Evlekis (talk | contribs) (113,377 bytes) (Restore edit that had been sourced)

Difs:

 

The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo

Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages. All editors on this article are subject to 1RR parole per week and are required to discuss any content reversions on the article talk page. For full details, see [1]-- LONTECH    Talk  17:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I wish to make the following statement in my defence, and to draw the attention of persons handling this matter to a related case. Anyone concerned with the Kosovo article will be aware that it is a very sensitive subject. To that end, Lontech has himself taken the liberty to remove unfavourable information. His timing has not violated the 1RR but his intention is clearly POV as his removals also blanked sources, this contravenes Wikipedia policy. The original author was Cinema C; following various discussions, I restored the edit but amended it to be less militant and more in line with the source itself (BBC). Lontech again removed this compromised revision again citing POV but at this point it was clear that Lontech was being disruptive; had he have known the information to be fallacious, he might have replaced the content with his "more accurate" descritpion and sources; or he might have edited my revision to reshape it. He chose the third option which was to blanket-revert, a practice only carried out when the original editor is blatantly vandalising. I contend that I am the second editor to work on this material, and there has since been a third, Enric Naval. Enric did indeed alter my revision but I see his contributions as positive and constructive and he has not removed the source and to this end, I am resigned to his revision. This surmises that I am not engaged in an edit war neither am I violating any policy. Meanwhile, Enric Naval has himself raised an issue concerning Lontech that admins may find interesting here. Evlekis (Евлекис) 18:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * this is not a dispute this is violation of rules.-- LONTECH    Talk  18:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * . Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement is also relevant here. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow this is not a dispute this is violation of rules. YOU dont deserve administrator priviledge. i'll report you-- LONTECH    Talk  18:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See also WP:BOOMERANG. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

what kind of reason is this Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Lontech What has to do this wtih 1RR violation.-- LONTECH    Talk  18:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

User:86.130.62.20 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: blocked for 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Editor was properly warned, etc, and didn't respond to an invitation to self-revert. I'd suggest those on the other side of the reverting respond to the editor's complaints on the article's talk page. Mkativerata (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

User:69.236.89.244 reported by User:Ronz (Result: 31 hr block for vandalism )
Pages:

User being reported:


 * Human gastrointestinal tract
 * 1st revert: 22:03, 23 September 2010
 * 2nd revert: 02:38, 24 September 2010
 * 3rd revert: 16:47, 24 September 2010
 * 4th revert: 17:04, 24 September 2010
 * 5th revert: 18:18, 24 September 2010


 * Feeding tube
 * 1st revert: 02:39, 24 September 2010
 * 2nd revert: 16:46, 24 September 2010
 * 3rd revert: 16:54, 24 September 2010


 * Nissen fundoplication
 * 1st revert: 16:45, 24 September 2010
 * 2nd revert: 16:55-57, 24 September 2010


 * Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy
 * 1st revert: 17:06, 24 September 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 16:48, 24 September 2010

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 21:40, 22 September 2010 22:26, 23 September 2010 05:10, 24 September 2010

Comments:

I've stopped all reverting with this ip, once it became clear this wasn't just the normal spamming of this link. I'd like someone to step in and encourage the person behind the ips to discuss the manner in a civil manner. The communication from this this ip (as well as a blocked sockpuppet) have been incivil, and ignore the issues brought up on the ips talk page. The problem may simply be the person is unaware of notices on the ip talk pages.

Obvious sockpuppetry has been going on for over three years --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * August 2007
 * 15 November 2009
 * 15 November 2009
 * August 2007
 * 28 July 2010
 * 17 May 2009 and 23 September 2010 (this ip is currently blocked)


 * See also:
 * Note that 69.236.x.x geolocates to location of link's organization. DMacks (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that 69.236.x.x geolocates to location of link's organization. DMacks (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Reisio reported by Terrillja talk  (Result: see next)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 18:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 06:59, 16 September 2010  (edit summary: "name, not wordmark; "An infobox is a FIXED-FORMAT table" â€” Help:Infobox, it's discontinuous to use an image here")
 * 2) 07:21, 16 September 2010  (edit summary: "maybe we should make this infobox bright fuchsia?  This page is special, after all (rvl)")
 * 3) 07:27, 16 September 2010  (edit summary: "rvl â€” WP:BRD")
 * 4) 04:44, 23 September 2010  (edit summary: "name, not wordmark; "An infobox is a FIXED-FORMAT table" â€” Help:Infobox, it's discontinuous to use an image here")
 * 5) 23:04, 23 September 2010  (edit summary: "rv 386485070; discuss what on talk?  If you'd like to discuss something I've said/done, go ahead & start a discussion; "discuss on talk" is not an argument, so I don't know what to say to it")
 * 6) 07:18, 24 September 2010  (edit summary: "that's not an argument either (rvl)")
 * 7) 18:15, 24 September 2010  (edit summary: "rvl â€” that discussion does not address the reasons I have given for reverting, and does not even yield a consensus as to what it _did_ address; you'll have to address the reasons I have given")


 * Diff of warning: here

User refuses to "get it" or use the talkpage to discuss grievances, has been reverted by multiple users, stopping just short of 3rr each time and refusing to join the discussion on the talkpage of the article.-- Terrillja talk  18:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you honestly even understand what 3rr means? ¦ Reisio (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Closed with report below. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Terrillja reported by User:Reisio (Result: protected, warnings all around)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 19:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 22:55, 4 September 2010  (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Trev M ; No, not by any stretch of WP:PROMO does that make any sense whatesoever. (TW)")
 * 2) 13:40, 6 September 2010  (edit summary: "change from logo to name to avoid repetition, keep same size for accurate rendering and readability")
 * 3) 00:31, 8 September 2010  (edit summary: "see talk for reasoning, in line with style of the article on Wikipedia, which has both an image logo and distinctive typeface")
 * 4) 07:06, 16 September 2010  (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Reisio ; Fix format means set inputs, not text only. See the talkpage. (TW)")
 * 5) 07:23, 16 September 2010  (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Reisio ; WP:BRD. (TW)")
 * 6) 08:38, 16 September 2010  (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 385129137 by Terrillja ; per talkpage and discussion on WP:VPP, vertert again and get reported to WP:AN3, also rvt spam el per WP:ELNO. (TW)")
 * 7) 11:19, 24 September 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 386699429 by Reisio (talk) per Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_79 and the talkpage of this article. If you have an issue with it, open a discussion")
 * 8) 18:33, 24 September 2010  (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Reisio ; Wordmark is a unique branding and identifier for this item. (TW)")


 * Diff of warning: here

User refuses to "get it" or use the talkpage to discuss grievances, has been reverted by multiple users, stopping just short of 3rr each time and refusing to respond to stated reasons. ¦ Reisio (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you honestly even understand what 3rr means?-- Terrillja talk  19:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Article protected, warnings all around. Please work this out at Talk:IPad. Most of the discussion there focuses on the size of the svg rendering, yielding weak to no consensus regarding the use of text vs. image of text in a particular typeface. The Village Pump discussion likewise does not really come to a firm consensus one way or the other, and there are unanswered objections to the use of the image regardless of display size. If you are unable to come to an accord among the currently active editors, please initiate a request for comment or request additional input, perhaps at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

User:82.71.13.218 reported by User:O Fenian (Result:24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Previously discussed at, where it was broadly agreed "assassination" was correct.

Comments:


 * [facepalm; headdesk] Another bloody Troubles edit war? Maybe we should just full-protect all those articles for ever and ever and ever. In the meantime, 24 hours to the anon for obvious edit warring. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

User:99.36.230.176 reported by User:Steelbeard1 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * A vandalism issue, for which the editor has been warned, but the edits are now stale. Mkativerata (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Xanderliptak reported by Yworo (talk) (Result: blocked for 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 20:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


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

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


 * 1) 01:28, 25 September 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Restoring data deleted by IP address.")
 * 2) 08:17, 25 September 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Lead is to summarize the most important parts. His heraldry and calligraphy career outshine the published book. Also, ISBNs do not go in the body the article or the lead.")
 * 3) 19:42, 25 September 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Published works are in the body of article, do not belong in the lead. Please read up on Wikipedia policy.")
 * 4) 19:49, 25 September 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "See Lead section")
 * 5) 20:14, 25 September 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 386995733 by Studioce (talk) You guys even said you're restoring per Jamieson's request. Read the policy and take to talk page.")


 * Diff of warning: here

Please note: a number of tags got added between the original version and the reverts, and Xanderliptak is not removing them. He is, however, reverting every change Studioce is making (see below). They are both edit warring. Yworo (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

—Yworo (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Four reverts in 24 hours. The block log shows the editor is well aware of 3RR. Mkativerata (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Studioce reported by Yworo (talk) (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 20:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


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

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


 * 1) 04:00, 25 September 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Please note:  Xander attacked this page and put up all the citations immediately after we attempted to edit his heraldry page and list the leaders in the field.")
 * 2) 15:06, 25 September 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 386895638 (talk)Xander is making edits based on his oppinion.He has vandalized this page and should be blocked from futher editing. Please see notes below.")
 * 3) 20:08, 25 September 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Xander is vandalizing this page.   His changes are based on his opinion not Wiki policy.")
 * 4) 20:26, 25 September 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Restored introduction AGAIN.  Xander vandalized it AGAIN along with Mr. Jamieson's Facebook fan page today.  He has been banned from artist's facebook pages.")


 * Diff of warning: here

Note: see also previous case: user is edit warring with. They have both broken 3RR. Yworo (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

—Yworo (talk) 20:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Clear 3RR violation, with reversions continuing after being warned. Mkativerata (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

User:JuanF7 reported by User:Bocafan76 (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: (Sock-Puppet)
 * 5th revert: (Sock-Puppet)
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (user talk page)

Comments: The user was warned several times about adding original research and disregard them, user was also reported for vandalism at the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, but administrators said it wasn't vandalism, user was reported at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but administrators don't seem to care. Beginning to wonder if anyone cares.

Regards --Bocafan76 (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * . IP blocked from anonymous editing for a week for sockpuppetry. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

User:79.43.196.128 reported by User:Alpha30 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: :User:Vituzzu
 * 2nd revert: or 79.43.196.128
 * 3rd revert: or 79.43.196.128
 * 4th revert: or 79.43.196.128
 * 5th revert: or 79.43.196.128
 * 6th revert: or 79.43.196.128
 * 7th revert: or User:Vituzzu

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:The files Nicotera and Gerace are two pages in obvious copyvio from websites with politician report .We see also that Wikipedia has a neutral position, the phrase "For the Italian politician, see Giovanni Nicotera" is out of WP:Project. The two pages have commons files in violation of copyright and no source loaded from it.wiki.the pages publishers are IP 79.43.196.128 and User: Vituzzu a problems on it.wiki, that are vandalism and IP blocking for User-problems. This is a very serious problems. For they request infinitive block, for copyvio ,copyright infrangement ,unneutral and false ,as by IP as by the User .WP:ANI patroller --Alpha ( my font is nobody... ) 23:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Not an edit-warring issue - I see there is a thread on WP:ANI which is the appropriate venue for generalised complaints. Mkativerata (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Kintetsubuffalo reported by Pieter Kuiper (talk) (Result:24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 10:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 17:28, 24 September 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 17:28, 24 September 2010  (edit summary: "") In these edits, Kintetsubuffalo included a figure (no caption, incomprehensible)
 * 3) 12:35, 25 September 2010  (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 210.165.133.93 (talk) to last version by PM800")
 * 4) 10:04, 26 September 2010  (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 210.165.133.93 (talk) to last version by Kintetsubuffalo")
 * 5) 10:22, 26 September 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 387099419 by Pieter Kuiper not during deletion discussion, and given your ad hominem attack on me")
 * 6) 10:44, 26 September 2010  (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 210.165.133.93 (talk) to last version by Kintetsubuffalo")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty open and shut case. This user has been blocked for edit warring before, but as that was nearly two years ago, I'm not taking that into account and just making this one a run-of-the-mill 24 hour one. Within the time it took me to complete this report, the anonymous user he was edit warring with also violated 3RR, so the anon has also been blocked for 24 hours (his/her incivility didn't help the situation any). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

User:210.165.133.93 reported by User:Kintetsubuffalo (Result:24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:


 * The image that keeps being removed is up for deletion at Commons (Commons:Deletion requests/File:346334h355h335h.jpg), nominated by the IP, so removing it from the article while the deletion discussion is ongoing is inappropriate. Longterm contentious user User:Pieter Kuiper has now jumped on the bandwagon.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 10:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

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:

This picture does not belong to that article. Maybe to the sick mind of the person who create it, but for sure not to the article. Remove it is the logical action, and keep putting it on the article is the real vandalism. By the way, that picture was used in more than 20 different wiki, and removed from all of them. There must be a reason, uh? --210.165.133.93 (talk) 10:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * See above report. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Varma0440 reported by User:Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

For the past several months user Varma0440 removing sourced content (Census Data) and altering sourced content. He was asked by other users at least a dozen times to give proper reason and reference, but ignored the warnings issued to him. On top of that he has been using his IPs as an anon to do the same. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Blocked 48 hours for edit warring. Warnings seem to have no effect. He never leaves any comments on talk pages. If you believe he is using more than one account, please give specifics. This account was created on 24 August. EdJohnston (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * He uses his IP to edit this article sometimes. For example, IP 89.211.116.201 doing this edit on Sep 15. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

User:ChaosMaster16 reported by User:Xeworlebi (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC+2


 * 22:22, 26 September 2010
 * 22:29, 26 September 2010
 * 22:35, 26 September 2010
 * 22:47, 26 September 2010
 * 23:03, 26 September 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Previous report by me about ChaosMaster16's edit warring on the Hellcats episode list, which resulted in a 48h block: link

Comments: Various discussions about the ratings have been had at the users' talk page. this comment by Jayy008 sums ChaosMaster16 stance up. User is currently warning me for deleting content. While I just restored the links to individual articles and directors etc. and reverted to the most accepted ratings (by various users). User has been blocked three times now for edit warring, the last time for the same article.  X  eworlebi (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Clear and rapid edit-warring by a repeat offender. Mkativerata (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Bullet Dropper reported by User:The Four Deuces (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: 03:22, 26 September 2010
 * 2nd revert: 18:08, 26 September 2010
 * 3rd revert: 18:48, 26 September 2010
 * 4th revert: 22:57, 26 September 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Orcadas reported by User:Emarsee (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: The text in question is already sourced and I've provided the user with several sources that proves the statement. The user refuses to accept the sources I've provided and is continuing to revert. 03:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

єmarsee •  Speak up!  03:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You both were guilty of edit warring (you might consider WP:BOOMERANG before filing further reports, btw). In any case, please take the edit war to Talk:CHAN-TV. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

User:89.241.2.41 reported by User:-5- (Result: page protected 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User engaging in edit war appears to have ownership issues with the article. The user is reverting to the version of the article that he/she prefers and in the process removing legitimate edits by other users.-5- (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

-5- (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Malleus Fatuorum reported by User:PatGallacher (Result:no violation)

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

This user has made the same edit to Moors Murders four times in the space of a few hours, in spite of a request to take the issue to the talk page. PatGallacher (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yet you have not participated in a thread about these edits on the talk page. Would you make clear what your issues with the article are? --Moni3 (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I observe that Pat has added at least two tags which require the creation of a discussion section on the talk page w/o initiating the discussion. When they are reasonably removed b/c there is no discussion of why there are there, he has reverted to replace them. Yworo (talk) 17:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There was one edit and 3 reverts. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur. And keep in mind that Malleus is the maintaining editor of the article, which is today's TFA, I'd cut him a break regardless.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

As this could be getting overheated maybe I should give it a rest for today, but:-

a) "Maintaining editor" of an article? This smacks of ownership of articles, which I thought was not allowed. b) In one case I did add an explanation to the talk page a couple of minutes after adding a flag, but the flag was removed before then. Maybe more than one person should be given a break here. c) In a few cases Malleus Fatuorum made controversial edits and reverts which he only justified by comments in his edit summary, without adding anything to the talk page. Is there a double standard here? PatGallacher (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes there is, but not the one that you think you've identified. Malleus Fatuorum 18:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Malleus Fatuorum reported by User:Tbhotch (Result:No violation )

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

Re-take it, the user has reverted five times (123 4 5, though it was notified, he continued reverting.  Tb hotch Ta lk C. 18:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Page in dispute:
 * Editor being reported:


 * Oh give Pat his pound of flesh. I'm getting sick to death of trying to maintain common sense on that article anyway. Let the pop culture trivia fans and the pov-pushing apologists for Myra Hindley have it all to themselves. Malleus Fatuorum 18:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * maintain common sense on that article and owning it is not the same. Tb hotch Ta lk C. 18:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Tbhotch, three of those reverts were to a version that have been disputed for specious reasons per PatGallacher (see the talk page), and the other two aren't reverting the same thing. If Malleus is to be blocked for maintaining the article in the face of ill-advised edits, then do it, but it's a stupid reason. I don't see how the other two reverts are edit warring. --Moni3 (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You know what 3RR states, if you didn't remember is :An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. The user is not reverting obvious vandalism, the user is not reverting a banned user, is not reverting BLP issues or copyright violations, but the user is reverting 5 times and owning the article. Tb hotch Ta lk C. 19:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should read 3RR yourself. A quote: "Considerable leeway is given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the main page." ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR ♯ ♭ 19:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if you mean "owning" per WP:OWN, I disagree. Owning is when an editor overturns another editor's edits just because he thinks no other opinions or edits should be made for reasons not associated with sources or the five pillars. In this case, User:Vilcxjo disputed a fact that was clearly cited. It was reverted and User:PatGallacher continued to revert Malleus without discussing the issue on the talk page. I initiated that discussion. Then PatGallacher placed a NPOV tag on the section, also without initiating a discussion, which was reverted by User:Nev1. Neither PatGallacher nor Vilcxjo have provided a source to dispute a fact that is not only cited at the end of the paragraph, but is further supported by other cited statements in the article. That is not ownership; it is holding the article to a higher standard, such is what a featured article is. If PatGallacher or Vilcxjo do not intend to discuss or provide a source for why they think the issue is disputed, the article should remain the way it was. Unfortunately, this 3RR policy states that Malleus should get blocked for this. I think that's nonsense, and if he should get blocked I would continue to revert in his place unless an editor can provide a reliable source for the dispute. I would likely do the same thing were it an article I had worked on to get to FA. Keep in mind also that this topic is more emotionally charged in the UK than any general article. --Moni3 (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If some clown of an admin blocks MF over this I shall enjoy the RFC over it. This complaint is against one of our most senior editors whose output (along with another signifianct editor) is the sole reason the article is on the main page. Maintaining the quality of TFA beats 3RR, in my book anyway. Pedro : Chat  19:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Better get ready to block me then also, because I will not allow this article to descend into the nonsense that some clearly want it to become. Parrot of Doom 19:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that y'all are stretching TFA-tending past what policy permits, but I think there's a case to be made that the edits being reverted were disruptive. I would tend to swing a trout gently at Malleus and an Orca firmly at PatGallacher and Vilcxjo.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be inclined to drop the piscine bollocks and realise that some people here are trying to keep TFA up to the standard expected by the readership. I think more effort could have gone into trying to achieve a talk page debate, but alas that often fails to happen, and more direct methods (reverting) are the only decent (if unpalatable to some) methods. It's not great but it is reality. Pedro : Chat  19:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Some users are saying that I am able to revert and revert and revert ... how many time I want because it is in the mainpage. There's a big difference between this and this (random selection). Considerable leeway is given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the main page is not a justification especially because Considerable leeway need to be reworded. Tb hotch Ta lk C. 19:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * @Tbhotch: there's a discussion at WP:OWN talk page about TFAs now. Please read the points and give your input. --Moni3 (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Just FYI, the revert labeled "4" above was reverting me and I have no problem with the revert. MF and I can always discuss it later. I certainly don't agree with it being held against him in a 3RR dispute. Yworo (talk) 20:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Editor is maintaining the quality of TFA. Discuss disputes and contentious edits on Talk before making them, please. Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * - 3RR allows leeway for a maintainer of a featured article. Two of the reverts were on minor formatting issues. The editor only had 3 reverts to one subject matter. I suggest you guys hash the gender dispute on the talk page; I really don't want to have to block all of you because you couldn't keep your hands of a tiny part of a featured article, and because I'm not going to full-protect a featured article. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no gender dispute. I have tried to meet these editors halway by rewriting one sentence that was flagged as dubious, even though I regarded the tag as ridiculous. Then I get accused of introducing unsourced quotations into the article to support my non-neutral pov, again ludicrously. Meanwhile PatGallacher continues to insist that his is the only true version of events, without providing a single shred of evidence and without discussion on the talk page. You can block me if you feel you must, but until then I will continue to revert the removal of reliably sourced analysis no matter how many times the gender police object. Malleus Fatuorum 20:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't spite your face. I suggest an RFC if necessary, slow as it may be. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And better yet, post about the RFC at WP:ANI to give more community heads up notice to expedite the process, explaining the need (just make sure the argument doesn't spread there!). Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If PatGallacher wants to present his/her side of the issue in an RfC with a series of sources that back up his/her claims that Myra Hindley is a notorious public figure for some other reason than the fact that she's a woman who participated in five brutal murders, I would welcome that effort and I hope Malleus and Parrot of Doom would also. I think it would be better to present that on the talk page anyway even without an RfC; the RfC would be for the case if PatGallacher provided it an it was ignored or disparaged. But this has not been presented. Only PatGallacher's speculative opinion that there may be some other reason for Hindley's notoriety, which is insufficient for any article, let alone an FA. Magog, if you're suggesting that Malleus and Parrot of Doom should initiate the RfC, I think that's unnecessary. I don't think a case has been made for an opposing viewpoint for this issue and this would create one where there does not appear to be one. --Moni3 (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no intention of initiating an RfC, and I very much doubt if PoD does either. If PatGallacher has reliable sources to back up his claims, which he is yet to produce, then no doubt we can easily come to some mutually acceptable form of words. Until then all I see is a pov-pushing editor. Malleus Fatuorum 23:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Considerable leeway is given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the main page."  — Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 23:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.