Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive141

Request for support
Page:

User being reported:, (same person)

This isn't exactly a 3RR problem, but it's the beginning of the American school year, so (as usual) we've got some problems at transsexuality-related articles like Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory, and I think we need some help.

This anon seems to be engaged in a campaign of gutting articles about concepts of transsexuality that s/he disagrees with. The current tactic is to "merge" articles into oblivion, so that Wikipedia's contents, taken as a whole, provide only the "right" information. This article has been "merged" to Etiology of transsexualism -- except without actually putting the name, any information about the idea, or any of the 25 reliable sources into the target article. Effectively, it's a unilateral deletion of properly sourced material.

I think this group of articles is at risk of edit warring, and I'd really appreciate having several completely uninvolved editors, ideally with strong skills at cooling down disputes, keep an eye on them for a few weeks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

User:Mickeysam reported by User:Talimama (Result: no violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

User Mickeysam only edits to vandalize the pages for Lee Mead and Denise van Outen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talimama (talk • contribs) 02:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If you believe this is a violation of policy, please see the biography of living persons noticeboard (for violations of WP:BLP) or the administrators noticeboard for incidents (for other policies); if it is a content dispute, please seek dispute resolution. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

GUNNERGRZ reported by btphelps (Result: No Violation)
Article:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Talk page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

GUNNERGRZ violation of edit warring, personal attacks, and article ownership.

I invited GUNNERGRZ on his talk page to discuss these edits on this article's talk page, which he has ignored. Instead, he sent me the following email which could be construed as threatening, quoted below:

""

The information I added which he removed was factual and supported by reliable sources. Virtually all of GUNNERGRZ contributions are to this single article. His devotion to this single article and his email to me, which overtly discourages me from making additional contributions to this article, give me the impression that he thinks he owns the article.

Comments on talk pages and even email should be courteous and always assume good faith, which I have tried to do. I did not remove his edit about the time during which Daniel Burke accepted the commission (a seemingly minor factual point), but added a template. After the three reverts on his part I added a warning template to his talk page. I was going to wait for a response, but because he has ignored by requests for discussion and then sent the email, felt this warranted an administrator's attention. Thanks for your time. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 05:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The rule is more than 3 reverts. Also it looks like the editors involved both are discussing changes on the talk page. Blocking someone at this point would be counterproductive. -Selket Talk 13:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Rangoon11 reported by Codf1977 (talk) (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 12:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 11:49, 28 September 2010  (edit summary: "Minor edits to improve text")
 * 2) 12:12, 28 September 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 387515082 - please discuss this on the talk page")
 * 3) 12:15, 28 September 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 387515982 - Please discuss these edits on the talk page")
 * 12:15, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 387516051 - Please discuss on talk page. Thanks.") - edit without intervening edit.
 * 1) 12:21, 28 September 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 387516977 - Once again, please discuss on talk page.")
 * 2) 12:24, 28 September 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 387517320 - there is no such things as a 'dominant editor' of an article and that is in any event irrelevant. Discuss these changes on the talk page, they are POV and original research")

Codf1977 (talk) 12:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Diff of warning: here

Neither editor has reverted since being warned of the 3RR. -Selket Talk 13:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

User:188.223.81.158 reported by Codf1977 (talk) (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 12:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 10:39, 28 September 2010  (edit summary: "added a well-sourced part which shows the reasons for disparity with international rankings")
 * 2) 12:08, 28 September 2010  (edit summary: "there is no need to repeat in the top, article is about league tables")
 * 3) 12:14, 28 September 2010  (edit summary: "criticism of the concept has nothing to do with international rankings, this topic is essential and should have separate subheading")
 * 12:14, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 387515773 by Rangoon11 (talk)") (no intervening edit)
 * 1) 12:20, 28 September 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 387516200 by Rangoon11 (talk)")
 * 2) 12:22, 28 September 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 387517151 by Rangoon11 (talk) Rangoon became the dominant editor of the article and has no right to edit further")
 * 3) 12:30, 28 September 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 387517568 by Rangoon11 (talk) check first rules of Wikipedia before editing, my position is stated in Discussion")
 * 12:32, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "Reasons to remove the top headline are stated in the Discussion page") (no intervening edit)


 * Diff of warning: here

—Codf1977 (talk) 12:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Neither editor has reverted since being warned of the 3RR. -Selket Talk 13:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

User:41.210.55.157 reported by User:Oncamera (Result: Proxy block)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 00:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 22:38, 28 September 2010  (edit summary: "already displayed in Infobox Korean name")
 * 2) 22:52, 28 September 2010  (edit summary: "no reason to undo it as the Hangul name is already displayed in Infobox Korean name")
 * 3) 23:35, 28 September 2010  (edit summary: "please take it to you talk page. As I said the title is already in the Korean Name box")
 * 4) 23:50, 28 September 2010  (edit summary: "stop and talk about it first please there is no rule for what you are doing Yume")
 * 5) 00:10, 29 September 2010  (edit summary: "currently under discussion at Yume's talk page thanks")


 * Diff of warning: here
 * An apparent discussion occurred on User talk:YumeChaser

— on camera (t)  00:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? Why was I reported when I am trying to resolve the issue. User:YumeChaser says that it is a common practice to have Hangul names in the Infobox, but there is already a Hangul name in the Korean Name Infobox. Am I an idot here?? 41.210.55.157 (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The discussion between the IP user and I didn't go anywhere, not sure what that means here but I thought it would be good to note. I was warned by an admin and stop reverting. IP reverted again, despite having prior knowledge of 3RR/edit war. 夢 追人 YumeChaser 01:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Another revert. 夢  追人 YumeChaser 01:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I reverted because someone else reverted my edit. 41.210.55.157 (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter who reverts your edit. 3 is the limit. 夢  追人 YumeChaser 01:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To 41.210.55.157: YumeChaser is correct. It doesn't matter who else is reverting, your limit is 3 and you have exceeded that.  I recommend you undo your own last edit and state your case on the article's talk page.  Request a WP:third opinion if you cannot reach an agreement.  The alternative is a block (which you still might receive).   --  Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Result -- IP blocked five years as a confirmed open proxy. EdJohnston (talk) 03:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Harout72 reported by User:Chasewc91 (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 1


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Harout72

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

Comments: I am reporting this user for deliberately edit warring against consensus, not 3RR. This user replaced the US R&B charts at Eminem discography with the Japanese ones, against consensus, so I reverted in good faith and asked them to discuss. They reverted my edit, saying consensus was not necessary. The fact that I reverted them in the first place showed that they made a controversial edit, which does require consensus, so I again reverted, and again asked them to discuss. They revert yet again and say that they did discuss. (They began this discussion but did not wait for consensus to form before reverting back.) I explained at their talk page that I would revert back to the original version (where the R&B charts were included over the Japanese ones) and asked them not to revert back until there was a consensus backing their edits. Surely enough, they reverted a third time.

This user was editing against consensus, but I acknowledge that since I edit warred as well, and since neither of us crossed 3RR, I accept and fully understand if I were to be blocked as a result of this report. My main issue with this user is that they are deliberately ignoring the consensus and edit warring to suit their desires, without any regard as to other editors' opinions and previous consensus. – Chase  ( talk ) 00:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Please note that Chasewc91 is not a regular editor to Eminem discography and he, so far, has failed to bring the so called consensus to my attention which he/she keeps referring to. From my long time observation, I've noticed that Chasewc91 happens to be an editor who's against using Japan within discography pages for some inexplicable reason, although, in this very case I have pointed out that Eminem has charted well in Japan with his materials, not to mention that Japan represents the second largest market in the world after US; therefore, it is important to highlight Eminem's Japanese chart performance. I also pointed out that Japanese positions for Eminem are based on sales, whereas the R&B positions are not based on sales, they are only to show how R&B/Hip-hop artists perform amongst themselves.--Harout72 (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Without continuing the dispute, I would like to note that I explained the idea of silence and consensus at Harout72's talk page. – Chase  ( talk ) 00:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Fully protected three days. When both parties make speeches about consensus in their edit summaries while they continue to revert it is kind of ridiculous. A true regard for consensus should make you slow down and wait for the discussion to be finished. EdJohnston (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment/Support Harout's proposal Well I for one, support Harout. R&B is simply a chart, a smaller branch of the Hot 100. While Eminem may not be very popular in Asia, he certainly has certifications in Japan. I find adding Japanese peaks and certifications more important, than adding a lesser and secondary US chart.-- Peter Griffin  &bull;  Talk2Me   05:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Drfragment reported by User:MrOllie (Result: 48h)
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:

Comments:


 * Result - Drfragment already blocked 48h by User:Fetchcomms per a complaint at ANI by a different editor. EdJohnston (talk) 04:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Nyisnotbad reported by User:Medeis (Result: a week and a half, warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (This is Nyisnotbad's Sept 15th version, to which he reverts wholesale, and for which he was previously blocked as edit warring.

Most recent identical reversions:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:

Absolutely identical reversions, prior to his latest block:
 * 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:  (This is the most recent of many warnings)

Comments:

User Nyisnotbad is conducting what is now a slow motion edit war. He has repeatedly reverted the article wholesale to the identical edit which earned him a one week block. After that he has again made the exact same wholesale reversion listed three times above, deleting improvements that have been made to the article in the meantime. His actions and responding to them have become quite burdensome.

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 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. He quotes Lehmann as saying that the Iranian theory had not yet been disproven, yet willfully ignores the fact that Lehmann then spends the remainder of the article providing that very disproof, concluding the exact opposite of Nyisnotbad's contention. He has been made aware of the fact that he is misrepresenting Lehmann by different editors on several prior and recent occasions.

The editor has a history of nationalist POV disputes for which he has been repeatedly both warned sanctioned.

He has been advised of the outdated and false nature of his evidence and takes no notice.

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.

His sole communication has been to insist that he is being censored.

Other than this repeated time-wasting and disruptive act, has made absolutely no other contribution to this article.μηδείς (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Formally warned of probation. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

User:KerAvelt reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 03:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to:

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


 * 1) 17:09, 28 September 2010  (edit summary: "Consensus in the talk page that this does not belong here, in addition to the editors refusal to provide a source that shows it importance to the topic, Sholom Rubashkin) that it belongs in the lead.")
 * 2) 20:49, 28 September 2010  (edit summary: "SEE TALK PAGE. And do not revert until responding on Talk page")
 * 3) 21:30, 28 September 2010  (edit summary: "Please do not engage in edit warring. Lacking consensus is a poor, poor excuse. I've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he isn't CEO, you not consenting means nothing.")
 * 4) 03:09, 29 September 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 387656632 by Mosmof (talk) EXPLAIN YOURSELF before making radical changes")


 * Diff of warning: here (subsequently removed by editor)


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: extensive activity at talk page, here

—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 03:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Nomoskedasticity—you have been unreasonable. A cogent argument has been made for the position (CEO/Vice president) yet you've persisted not seeing it. A well-reasoned case has been presented that legal charges that were dismissed do not warrant mention in the lead. Yet you've insisted on not seeing that. Even in the absence of BLP concerns your conduct in these matters would be unreasonable. Bus stop (talk) 03:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * None of it is cogent -- but this is not the place for content discussion of the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I have reason to believe is the same editor as Keravelt and that edit count is higher. Mosmof (talk) 03:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Article protected 3 days. It is hard to sympathize with KerAvelt's reverts, and the concern about socking appears well-taken. Nonetheless this is a BLP article and a longer discussion might be needed to be precise about the relationship of Sholom Rubashkin to the troubled company. Since 5W Public Relations is a firm that represented Agriprocessors in the past, and 5W's article was a festival of sockpuppetry, it could be useful in KerAvelt's SPI case to link to Requests for checkuser/Case/Emetman. EdJohnston (talk) 04:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * KerAvelt ‎blocked for 96 hours and FederalInvestigator blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

User:75.61.99.138 reported by User:WDavis1911 (Result: sprotted both)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on the user's talk page:
 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on the user's talk page:
 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on the user's talk page:

Comments:

Not sure if this is the place for this, but it seemed to be the most reasonable. A user is violating Original research, which is not by itself surprising. I respond with a templated message about this on the user's talk page. The original research is reproduced just minutes later. I revert it, and respond by writing a personal note on the user's talk page, encouraging the user to read our policy pages and continue contributing in a more constructive manner. The user then re-adds the information. I once again revert, with yet another templated warning. At this point, it seems to me that the user is just being stubborn about including the original research. It seems more about agenda pushing than anything else-- especially since these same edits were included on the Flat tax article. They were so deeply embedded in the Flat tax article that I just added a refimprove tag and figured I'd clean it out when I had more time (there were a few reasonably decent edits included, soI didn't want to just do a full revert). Thanks a lot for looking into this matter, and I hope I haven't taken up anyone's time unnecessarily. WDavis1911 (talk) 05:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Both pages semi-protected. Kudos to WDavis1911 for their handling of this matter. Hopefully the IP will be back to discuss on the talk pages. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad I could help :) Thank you for your time, and take care! WDavis1911 (talk) 05:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

User:24.120.110.224 reported by -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 08:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 01:30, 28 September 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 05:03, 28 September 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 05:11, 28 September 2010  (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by ALR identified as vandalism. ALR is editing against majority consensus that Ninjas are special forces which has been on the article a long time. Undeniable")
 * 4) 05:15, 28 September 2010  (edit summary: "Reverted 2 edits by CharlieEchoTango identified as pov pushing vandalism against majority consensus. Please discuss and use the sandbox for experimentation.")
 * 5) 05:19, 28 September 2010  (edit summary: "For many years this article has stated that Ninjas are Special Forces operators, if you dispute this show us any reputable source that can prove Ninjas are NOT Special Forces operators.")
 * 6) 18:13, 28 September 2010  (edit summary: "rv to previous version by Jim Sweeney.")
 * 7) 19:38, 28 September 2010  (edit summary: "revert to previous accurate version by Jim Sweeney")
 * 8) 00:15, 29 September 2010  (edit summary: "Ask any SWAT operator at your local Police station, Police SWAT, FBI HRT and CIA Special Activities Division are all considered "Special Forces". You three are trying to push military POV!")


 * Diff of warning: here

—-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

Edit 1 looks like the original addition of unsourced material, followed by 7 reversions of its removal within the past 24 hours - it has been removed by a number of different editors. I issued a 3RR warning yesterday, but the editor blanked it and carried on warring. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Has now blanked the 3RR warning again and has continued reverting...

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 09:55, 29 September 2010 (edit summary: "reverted 1 edit by ALR identified as vandalism and repeated POV pushing saying that Police SWAT, Ninja, FBI HRT, CIA are not Special Forces when they are by majority consensus.")


 * I have blocked the IP for 24 hours for edit warring --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 09:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

User:The Dazs reported by User:Xeworlebi (Result: declined)
Page: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: oldid

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


 * 1) 05:52, 29 September 2010  (edit summary: "Episode summaries should be BRIEF, explaining only the general events. They should not summarize an entire episode. Reverted ep.1 to 20:19, Sep 27 by Grsz11.")
 * 2) 06:15, 29 September 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision by (talk) as my previous revert fully complies with wikipedia's spoiler guidelines.")
 * 3) 10:27, 29 September 2010  (edit summary: "Removed episode 2 summary. Go here to find out why.")
 * 4) 12:07, 29 September 2010  (edit summary: "Reverted as I do believe the removal of spoilers within this page is acceptable under the spoiler guidelines. Join the discussion")
 * 5) 12:26, 29 September 2010  (edit summary: "Removing content (but still following the spoiler guidelines)!  Join the discussion")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: previous discussion on article talk page, current discussion at WP:SPOILER

Comments: With under 30 edits under his belt, this user claims to be not edit warring because he believes BRD is a process that takes place after every reply in the discussion.  X  eworlebi (talk) 13:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a valid and well-formed request, but Dazs has now agreed to stop edit warring while consensus is built. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson reported by User:Rjanag (Result: closed)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
 * Heat to light ratio? On the wrong side. Courcelles 03:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: move on August 26


 * 1st revert: (reverted this)
 * 2nd revert: (reverted this

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Pmanderson (last month)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Turpan (RfC and 3O)

Comments: Pmanderson expressed his disagreement with the page title back in August and had a brief move war back then ; after his third move here I let the title remain at where he kept putting it and opened up an RfC, during which time four editors (Thparkth, Shenhemu, Vmenkov, and myself) commented in favor of moving back to "Turpan", and only Pmanderson was in favor of keeping it at "Turfan". I waited 20 days without any further comments, and no one else expressed any opinion one way or the other, so when the RfC closed I took it as consensus in favor of moving the article back, so I moved it back to "Turpan", after which Pmanderson started the edit warring described in this report. It is difficult to get him to discuss article content issues, as during the entirety of the RfC he only talked about user misconduct and never presented evidence in favor of either article name, and now he has specifically says he wants to "deter" people from contacting him at his talk page.

I also note that Pmanderson has been reported for edit warring just two weeks ago (Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive140) and has a long block log with numerous blocks for edit warring. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This irresponsible admin moved Turfan to Turpan, despite strong opposition by User:Alefbe; closed the eventual discussion on the title at Talk:Turfan, and now, after a further inconclusive discussion  at Talk:Turfan in which  he was the chief advocate, has moved it again twice (using his bit to delete the redirect). He himself admits that it was not closed by a neutral observer. It should be so closed; but I would appreciate 24 hours to locate and quote the standard works of general reference I consulted several weeks ago. In the meantime. it should stay where it was.   Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Why do you need 24 hours now when you had a month-long RfC during which you refused to address any of the arguments? If you want a neutral observer to close it, go get one&mdash;the consensus of the RfC is clear. Anyway, AN3 is not a place to continue content disputes and to argue about what the outcome of the RfC was. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 02:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure this can be resolved as a basic edit warring issue. Here, both parties have moved an equal number of times (or perhaps equal+1, but either way). This seems to be a mix of content dispute and, perhaps more fundamentally, a question of how to interpret a discussion and where consensus lies. Unfortunately, this noticeboard (and for that matter Wikipedia as a whole) is not really suited to such a task. That's what I'm seeing here, unless I've missed something (in which case please let me know). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's what I'm going to do. No one is getting blocked today. The page is going back to Turpan, where it started this whole mess in 2004. The page will be move protected. I expect no one to use sysop buttons to undo this. Then, someone will follow the policy and open a requested move discussion. After a week, an uninvolved admin will close it and then we'll get on with business. Everyone understand? Courcelles 02:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Heimstern: Pmanderson refused for over a month to contribute constructively to an ongoing RfC, and now when he's worried about getting blocked he suddenly decides he wants to re-open the RfC and contribute some arguments. Clearly he is not interestsed in discussing the issues or finding a consensus except when a blockhammer is hovering over his head. Maybe he hasn't broken 3RR, but this is clearly not cooperative editing behavior, especially for someone who should know better (given his numerous run-ins with this noticeboard.
 * Actually, I left the RfC because Rjanag has never presented anything but declamation; I did not check back every day - why do I have to? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Courcelles: That sounds like a good solution, thank you. I will not be moving the page. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 02:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought when I protested that Rjanag has done this; no-one would have been so improper as to move and protect the article in the absence of any cvonsensus besides that of Rjanag and Rjanag. This is shameful disregard of Rjanag's years of misconduct. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I can put it back and block you for 96 hours for disruptive editing, or you can go participate in the open RM discussion. Your choice. I read the RfC, and Rjanag correctly read the consensus there. (Though I don't think closing a discussion you participate in is best practice.) I could have blocked you for disruption... some may even say I should have.  However, that would have just been kicking the can down the road, an approach I'm not especially fond of.  The page was at this title for five years, if you're right, a week for an RM to run its course isn't going to harm anything.  Courcelles 02:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've already participated; but thank you, I am cooler now. The harm, however, is in shifting the burden of proof. Of course Rjanag opposes this; he has already done more for his POV; therefore he should not be permitted to produce an artificial lack of consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, so 'lack of consensus' is artificial? We agree then that the consensus is real? That sure clears things up. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Pmanderson, as you go on about Rjanag's behaviour, you might want to have a close look at your own. You say the consensus is "Rjanag and Rjanag"; that's just not true. Frankly, saying that your side is "Pmanderson and Pmanderson" would be a lot more accurate. What I said up there about this not being resolvable as an edit warring dispute was not meant to mean you're totally cool; only that the matter here in not really an edit warring dispute. I've seen you consistently at ANI lately and what I constantly see is complete intransigence. That kind of behaviour is not compatible with Wikipedia, and I think you know that. You're really cruising for a block these days. I have no plans to issue one myself given our past disputes, so this is just a caution, a prediction, if you will. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:05, 30 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:70.144.72.216/User:70.144.97.243/User:Apollo1975 reported by User:GarnetAndBlack (Result: protected)
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:

Comments: Anonymous editor was using multiple IPs (two are listed in this report) to make unconstructive POV edits to this article, then registered an account after one of the IPs was issued a 3RR warning. No attempt has been made on article talk page to seek consensus for these edits which are basically just vandalism. A CheckUser should be run to determine if sock-puppetry is at work here, but I'd imagine WP:DUCK applies. Also suggest semi-protection for this article until this person gets bored and finds other shenanigans to engage in. Thanks! GarnetAndBlack (talk) 05:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * by Magog the Ogre. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is certainly not the result I was hoping for, but if Apollo1975 (or one of the IP socks) begins edit warring in this article as soon as the protection ends, I will file another report here after the first such edit, and I expect this history to be taken into account. Thanks again. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 06:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Skywriter reported by User:Nick-D (Result: 24 h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: (23 September)
 * 2nd revert: (23 September)
 * 3rd revert: (29 September)
 * See also the edit war over the same topic involving Skywriter at Henry Steele Commager (recent example Skywriter diffs: (23 September),  (23 September),  (24 September), (27 September),  (28 September) - this seems to have been going on for quite a while, with  reverting Skywriter's changes

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (on 23 September) and  (also 23 September)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion at Talk:Samuel Eliot Morison. Diffs from the most recent discussions include: (Skywriter),  (me - note that this is a series of edits all on the same talk page post),  (comment from non-involved editor AustralianRupert),  (me again agreeing with AustralianRupert) See also the discussion at Talk:Henry Steele Commager

Comments:

is engaging in a long-running edit war over the Samuel Eliot Morison article. He or she wishes to include multiple quotes from authors criticising one of Morison's books. I prefer to include a summary of this material. Instead of discussing this on the talk page, he or she is instead accusing other editors of attempting to 'censor scholars' and is edit warring (note in particular the 29 September reversion when there was no support for their position on the article talk page). It appears that Skywriter is engaging in a similar edit war in the Henry Steele Commager over wanting to include lots of material concerning the same book. Please note that similar material advocated by Skywriter was trimmed to a summary in the Samuel Eliot Morison article back in 2007 following a discussion on the article talk page, yet Skywriter reinstated much of this material in January 2010 - I removed it and there was a discussion on the  talk page which didn't really go anywhere (beyond Skywriter accusing me of wanting to censor the article) and all was quiet until Skywriter restarted the edit war on 23 September. Nick-D (talk) 08:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nyttend (talk) 13:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears that someone blocked Skywriter at the same time as I was declining this. Striking decline, since obviously that's not true.  Nyttend (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the pseudo-edit conflict. I concur that this is not a technical 3RR violation, but reading the history and the talkpages I do think that this pattern of edits is covered by WP:Edit warring. I am also warning for the related edit war at Commager. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Apollo1975 reported by User:GarnetAndBlack (Result: indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: To be clear, this report is for edit warring, not 3RR violation, as the editor being reported is careful not to cross that bright line, and indeed seems to have recently created this username in an obvious effort to avoid having an anonymous IP blocked during earlier violations in another article. This editor has been made well aware of Wikipedia policy regarding 3RR/edit warring through multiple warnings on their talk page (some of which the user has removed and replaced with retaliatory templates). User continues to make edits to the article in question which remove well-sourced and notable content, making absolutely no attempt to seek consensus. Indeed, this editor has yet to make a single post on the article's talk page discussing changes which remove content that was merged into this article through the efforts and consensus of numerous editors. User appears to ignore all advice given by more than one experienced editor, and instead returns to making unilateral decisions. Assistance in dealing with this disruptive and tendentious editor would be greatly appreciated. At the bare minimum, semi-protection of the article would seem to be in order. Thanks! GarnetAndBlack (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: Apollo1975 has been recently confirmed by CheckUser to be using sockpuppets to make disruptive edits.
 * Already indeffed for socking. T. Canens (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

User:67.70.128.37 reported by User:VsevolodKrolikov (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: (revert over two consecutive edits)
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Attempt made before this IP started, but just after a previous IP also from Ottawa had been doing the same thing: While trying to reply to IP's message on talkboard, fourth revert happened (i.e. no opportunity given for discussion):

Comments:

The reverts are reinsertions of POV unsourced and poorly sourced material. This IP appears to be a POV warrior, and entirely uninterested in following wikipedia policies - note comments on the talkpage. I believe it may be the same person as, who followed the same edit pattern eg diff:. (My attempt to talk to this user:). Both IPs are from Ottawa.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The IP continues to edit-war, here is the 5-th revert. An immediate block is appropriate. Nsk92 (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * User had not been notified of the three revert rule. Prior warning was about unsourced statements.  If he reverts again, repost here or let me know.  -Selket Talk 16:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There has been another, 6th, revert, subsequent to your warning. A block is required now. Nsk92 (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've blocked 67.70.128.37 for 24 hours, for violating 3RR (or 6RR, or whatever...) TFOW<b style="color:#F00">R</b> 17:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Se8du4ia420 reported by User:Xeworlebi (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: previous version

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
 * 1) 03:17, 30 September 2010  (edit summary: "Smallville is not a Science-Fiction series")
 * 2) 21:23, 30 September 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 387877052 by Xeworlebi (talk)")
 * 3) 22:15, 30 September 2010  (edit summary: "The definition of Science Fiction is Material to this discussion. Yes I agree with you in that Smallville will exceed Stargate-SG1 in seasons, but Stargate-SG1 still holds the title because it SciFi")
 * 4) 22:19, 30 September 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 00:11,  1 October 2010  (edit summary: "The definition of Science Fiction is Material to this discussion. Yes I agree with you in that Smallville will exceed Stargate-SG1 in seasons, but Stargate-SG1 still holds the title because it SciFi")
 * 6) 00:51,  1 October 2010  (edit summary: "Look up the definition for Science Fiction...")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Comments: First two edits by IP, account created after second time being reverted, made 4 reverts as account. Removing sourced (4 references) and the statement they back up. User does not believe Smallville is science fiction, although 4 different references state so.  X  eworlebi (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Welsh family reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 20:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 19:00, 30 September 2010  (edit summary: "/* Legal action */")
 * 2) 19:11, 30 September 2010  (edit summary: "/* Legal action */ Unwarranted")
 * 3) 19:26, 30 September 2010  (edit summary: "/* Legal action */")
 * 4) 19:35, 30 September 2010  (edit summary: "/* Legal action */ Removed libellous content")
 * 5) 19:38, 30 September 2010  (edit summary: "/* Legal actions */ Libelous reporting")
 * 6) 19:48, 30 September 2010  (edit summary: "/* Legal actions */ Libelous")
 * 7) 19:53, 30 September 2010  (edit summary: "/* Legal actions */ Was unjustified at time of reporting and is certainly unjustified 16 years on! This will result in complete removal of wikipedia entry for Brian welsh")
 * 8) 19:57, 30 September 2010  (edit summary: "/* Legal actions */ Unwarranted")
 * 9) 20:03, 30 September 2010  (edit summary: "/* Legal actions */ Libelous")
 * 10) 20:13, 30 September 2010  (edit summary: "/* Legal actions */ Unwarranted addition to content requested removal of wikipedia entry")
 * 11) 20:19, 30 September 2010  (edit summary: "/* Legal actions */ Unwarranted")
 * 12) 20:22, 30 September 2010  (edit summary: "/* Legal actions */")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This report is somewhat redundant and superfluous at this time. The page is already locked, and conversation is ongoing here. Legitimate questions have been raised about the quality of the source, the applicability of WP:BLP, and specifically WP:NPF. We'll see how progress resumes after the page is unlocked. Spike Wilbury (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you sure it's redundant *and* superfluous? :)  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

User:85.250.159.127 reported by User:Xeworlebi (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to: link

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


 * 1) 05:59,  1 October 2010  (edit summary: "/* Critical reception */")
 * 2) 06:14,  1 October 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 388052346 by This is nonsense. The section is clearly headed Critical Reception. There is no defined standard for an accepted source for a critical reception.")
 * 3) 06:36,  1 October 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision Please explain how you can exclude a perfectly well defined critical reception from the section headed Critical Reception. You're being elitist and absurd.")
 * 4) 07:11,  1 October 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision. You have not made a case why this critical reception is less relevant than Deseret News. You're being elitist. This comment adds to the page. It does not detract.")


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

Comments: This is the Xth IP iteration of user that keeps adding some guys blog posts as reputable reception: 67.235.253.199 diff; 89.139.164.152 diff 1, diff 2; 85.250.142.178 diff)  X  eworlebi (talk) 07:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

User:75.85.53.84 reported by User:Radiopathy (Result: 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Comment Discussion about the ongoing edit war between Radiopathy and the IP across multiple articles is also taking place at User Talk:SarekOfVulcan here . As per WP:RESTRICT, Radiopathy is under an indefinite 1RR restriction for continued edit warring, which he seems to be breaking here, here  , and here  . On both of those last two, his next revert was less than an hour away from violating it two straight days in a row. I brought this up to him on Sarek's talkpage and asked him to stop, his only response was to file this edit war complaint against the other party. Dayewalker (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll leave it to others to consider possible sanctions against Radiopathy. They appear to have violated their restriction on the 29th, but it would seem punitive to block for that now. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Nyisnotbad reported by User:Medeis (Result: already handled)
Page:

User being reported:

User being reported:

The user Nyisnotbad has been blocked from editing for 10 days. He is using IP address 67.49.14.143 to evade the block. (Note that he cannot edit the article, it being semi-protected.) These are the IP edits made so far:


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

Notice of ten-day block: Comments:

The user Nyinotbad has been blocked twice in the last month from editing Armenian language and is currently still under the second block. The page is semi-protected. He is using an IP address 67.49.14.143 to evade the block.


 * The arguments presented are identical to that of the block user.
 * Inspection of Nyisnotbad's contributions and those of the IP user show a list of identical articles edited.
 * The IP user appeared only once the editor was blocked.
 * He is making identical detailed false representations about a source which Nyisnotbad was making.

I request that the IP be blocked and the user be further sanctioned.μηδείς (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Gwen Gale reported by User:John J. Bulten (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 1st, 2nd, 3rd in part 4th 5th


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: none, admin

Comments:

The other User:RollerBooger is probably guilty too but the diffs and revert-tos are not as clear. Full disclosure: I discovered this after being involved in an unrelated disagreement with this editor. It still appears that this is a violation in that arguing over inclusion of a cast member is not a free-revert case. JJB 22:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC) User doesn't believe I'm serious. User has multiple prior edit-war blocks and an arbcom violation in 2007. JJB 23:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a completely new user (which is a bit suspect), and it was a deletion of sourced material. That said, Gwen is very very much out of line, not only with the rollback tool but threatening to block a user in a dispute: future edit warring of this type will receive a block. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No dispute, not out of line, looked like vandalism to me, redlinked user, only contributions were blanking the same sourced content over and over. Meanwhile User:John J. Bulten is unhappy that I protected Gadsby: Champion of Youth, where he and another editor where edit warring over lipograms. I think it's safe to say, User:John J. Bulten templated my talk page and posted here only out of spite. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps so, but the motives for a report do not make it invalid. In this case, while it might not have been your intention to get into a dispute, you did step over the bright-line rule and, as far as I can see, none of the reverted edits were vandalism. I would suggest being more careful with rollback at the very least. Non-admins have been known to lose it for less. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Chrisrus reported by User:JohnBlackburne (Result: 12h)
Page:

User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to: (1st revert)
 * Previous version reverted to: (reverts 2 and 3)
 * Previous version reverted to: (4th revert)


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 23:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to investigate closely using the History and to follow the discussion as it unfolds. Chrisrus (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Only 12 hours because the user was not warned before reported, but blocked because the user has thousands of edits over a few years, including edits at WP:ANI and extensive discussion (as well as edits about edit warring), so I am not convinced the user didn't know of the bright red line. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

User:75.19.47.94 reported by User:Jokeboy (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1)


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This may actually require page protection. The subject of the page is in the middle of an election, for which absentee voting starts in a couple of days.

This is an anonymous user, who has made this change from two different IPs, who has never once commented on why the change is relevant, who has never edited any other page, and who has refused to comment on the discussion page. I've asked another of the page's frequent editors to chime in, but he hasn't done so (yet), and the reverts keep happening. The nature of the edits, the anonymity of the user, and the timing and persistence of the edits points to a serious NPOV violation intended as political opposition to the candidate. I'd appreciate it if someone could take a look at this and either step in or tell me that I'm off-base with this.

Had the user inserted "Chinese American" only once, I would have thought it was pointless, but harmless. Adding it twice in the same sentence says pretty clearly that it's intended to be prejudicial, and that the editor doesn't have benign intentions. My understanding is that by insinuating that she was colluding with a "Chinese American", the implication to her constituents is that she is a communist sympathizer, which is a serious character attack. I'm not fully up on the California Vietnamese culture, but that's my limited understanding, which is why I took it so seriously.

Sorry for any errors in this report - it's my first edit war...

Jokeboy (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Page protection may be requested at WP:RfPP if necessary. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

User:BS24 reported by User:Xenophrenic (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1) Fuller content version, before repeated purging and scrubing of information


 * 1) First revert — 14:26, 1 October 2010
 * 2) Second revert — 00:12, 2 October 2010
 * 3) Third revert — 00:55, 2 October 2010
 * 4) Fourth revert — 02:29, 2 October 2010
 * 5) Fifth revert — 02:52, 2 October 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * I gave the editor an opportunity to self-revert and engage in discussion before I filed this. My offer was apparently rejected. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Most of the talk page

Comments:

The editor apparently feels no need to discuss, or answer queries because he has been editing this article longer. He is now resorting to personal attacks on editors and adopting a "find it yourself" attitude when he's pinned down to substantiate his claims and edits:
 * Azure, you posted on the 8th and 21st with nothing in between. I have been here every single day. I don't have to do the research for you. Read through the archives at the top of the page. If you're going to revert edits, at least know what you're talking about. BS24 (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, there were only 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. Multiple uninterrupted reverts only count as a single revert for 3RR purposes. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   13:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, HJ Mitchell. Thank you very much for having a look at this issue, but I believe you have made a minor oversight. Could you please have another look at the diffs shown above?  They do indeed indicate the editor has reverted not 4, but 5 times in a 24 hour period. None of the diffs above represent "uninterrupted reverts" - they have each been reverted by other editors. To aid you in identifying the reverts, please note the text "each grid cell" has been removed from the article in each of the above edit diffs. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * After a more thorough examination of the history, I count 4 reverts. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

User:HiLo48 reported by User:Ganec (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1) First revert —  23:53, 1 October 2010
 * 2) Second revert — 00:03, 2 October 2010
 * 3) Third revert —  02:25, 2 October 2010
 * 4) Fourth revert — 04:16, 2 October 2010
 * 5) Fifth revert after warning/notification already published to recipient  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganec (talk • contribs) 04:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

My response? LOL !

Really, this user is being totally confrontational. My Edit summaries and comments on his Talk page will show the efforts I have made to reach sanity here. HiLo48 (talk) 04:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Please do not LOL about this, this is serious.
 * That said - I have blocked Ganec for 24 hrs for disruption for what he's been doing recently. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Reportee believed he was reverting vandalism and reporter is blocked for disruption. Nothing to see here. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Rusmeister reported by User:mddietz (Result: No vio)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Comments: the problem consists of an individual, Russmeister, who is characterizing John Dewey as an atheist. 1) he continues to put this informatiion in the lead sentence altho others have asked him not to. 2) he offers no secondary source for his conclusion and his primary source is inconclusive. 3) he has refused to recognize the primary source material that has been offered as an althernative. 4) He continues to revert rahter than resolving the issue on the discussion page. Any help would be appreciated. Mddietz (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Tiiischiii reported by User:Dayewalker (Result: 3h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, ongoing discussion on talk page

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

Comments:

Editor has been warned on their talk page, but deleted and ignored. New editor, perhaps a short block would get them to understand about edit warring and the importance of consensus. Dayewalker (talk) 00:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

User:MarnetteD reported by User:Tiiischiii (Result: No vio)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MarnetteD&oldid=388282568

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

Comments:

Editor has been warned on their talk page, but deleted and ignored. Established editor, but refuses to enter into constructive dialogue with new user, and refuses to listen to others point of view. Prefers to use block reverts and talk pages of other users to target contribution of one member Tiiischiii (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone is doing way too much reverting, and it's not Marnette. I'd block the reporter, except they have already served a VERY short block before their last revert. Courcelles 13:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

User:RMc reported by User:Piriczki (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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Recently I have been making a good faith effort to improve this article by clarifying certain facts regarding the subject and removing some questionable claims that had no sources. My edits have been continually reverted without any substantive comment about the content of the article and no effort to cite any sources. It appears the editor has a personal opinion about the idea of "coyright traps" that he wishes to insert into articles even though there is no basis for the claim.


 * by  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * 48 hours. No block or warning for User:Piriczki, also warring, because RMc was ignoring discussiona and there was little else Piriczki could do. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 17:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Alacante45 reported by User:Joshinda26 (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

However, always the best thing to do to prevent edit warring is to discuss the topic on the article's talk page. This user appears to be very inexperienced and have a limited knowledge of wikipedia policies coupled with enthusiasm and high speed editing tools. I suggest the high speed editing tools be taken away, particularly as they are being used to edit war, post inappropriate vandal warnings, and other abuse, and maybe someone can assist with teaching the editor how to edit. --184.99.172.218 (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Joshinda26 (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Tao2911 reported by Slp1 (talk) (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 18:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC Consensus version as discussed over several weeks on the talkpage. Edit warring on a BLP article against multiple editors. original version A complicated set of reversions but one common component is reinsertion of the header "Abuse allegations"


 * 1) 16:15,  3 October 2010  (edit summary: "/* Abuse Allegations */")
 * 2) 16:24,  3 October 2010  (edit summary: "/* Abuse Allegations */ 'retirement' section header")
 * 3) 16:26,  3 October 2010  (edit summary: "Adding more section headers - page is run-on, confusing, messy")
 * 4) 16:30,  3 October 2010  (edit summary: "/* Biography */")
 * 5) 16:33,  3 October 2010  (edit summary: "reduced section header size")
 * 6) 18:28,  3 October 2010  (edit summary: "there was no consensus on this version. It was a mess. I helped fix it - mainly by just rearranging. Discuss probs in talk. Don't revert.")
 * 7) 18:33 3 October 2010

3rr warning= 2010-10-03T16:36:03 —Slp1 (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * User has continued to edit-war after this notice:


 * 14:44 EDT, 3 October 2010 (edit summary: "there was no consensus - this is a complete fabrication. taking issue to appropriate admin board.")
 * This user has persistently edit-warred over this page, and has a long history of edit wars on multiple pages as can be seen from the warnings on his talk page and archive. The user was first warned about violating WP:BLP on the Shimano page in July 2010. I am concerned by Tao2911's persistent tendency to ignore Wikipedia's rules, and I suggest that a more substantial sanction may be indicated at this point. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

And another one 19:15:52 3 October 2010 (edit summary: "Take individual points to talk for discussion - do not revert for false "consensus" (see talk for discussion of said issue"))--Slp1 (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

User:76.19.249.241 reported by User:Betsythedevine (Result: 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert: (blanking political position section)
 * 4th revert: (re-adding info about awards)
 * 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Frank Guinta is a candidate for US Representative from NH. Several people have tried to add a section to this article describing his political positions, but this IP keeps blanking the section, without any explanation of why a candidate's article should not discuss his political beliefs. Also, the article used to contain a paragraph listing awards won by the city Manchester, NH during the 4 years Guinta was its mayor; none of these awards mentions Guinta and none of the awards was given to honor achievements made by Guinta. Unless some WP:RS credits Guinta for an award, it does not belong in his bio as per WP:SYNTHESIS. Several editors, including me, have tried to make these two changes but this IP keeps reverting them.

Furthermore, minutes after I explained WP:3RR on the IPs talk page, a new SPA got created,, who also blanked the political positions section twice, two more diffs repeating the same actions in addition to the 5 listed above. betsythedevine (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This has obviously been going on for several days with no discussion or end in sight. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Neo ender reported by C T J F 8 3  chat (Result: 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 01:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 22:06,  3 October 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 00:13,  4 October 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 388564800 by GageSkidmore (talk)")
 * 3) 00:33,  4 October 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 388571907 by GageSkidmore (talk)")
 * 4) 00:56,  4 October 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 388575101 by GageSkidmore (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

Suggest longer block due to other issues with user, including yesterdays block — C T J F 8 3  chat 01:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * personal attack C T J F 8 3  chat 01:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * for copyvio issues, personal attacks and two 3RR violations. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Urgent01 reported by User:JuanR (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

I have done a bit research and found that editor User:Urgent01 is involved in additional edit wars with at least two more editors in the same article. Some diffs: ,,,,,. More info is given below.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Editor User:Urgent01 has deleted the edit warring notice, labeling it as "remove vandalism":

Other editors have explained to him Wikipedia policies and warned him from being blocked if continue reverting. See below for diffs.

As can be verified the edit summaries by editor User:Urgent01 are blatantly false. He claims that Nature journal, JPL-NASA database, MPC, Physical Review journal and others are not valid sources per Wikipedia policy. He claims that he is deleting "original research" per Wikipedia policy, but he is deleting quotations and references to top journals as Physical Review, Foundations of Physics, and Physics Letters. Moreover, he gives not citation for many of his claims, e.g. ,. He claims that is correcting biased editings, but he removes affiliations, truncate titles of references, cites a paper by Marsch and Nissim-Sabat but deletes the reference to the response published in the same journal, ignoring also specific section in the talk page. He claims that his point of view is neutral but then write personal attacks "ignorant crank, charalaton, or worse" against the subject article. Etc.

Another editor has also noticed that edit summaries by User:Urgent01 are not honest: "please be honest in your edit summary and say what you are doing"

Other editors also reported edit wars with User:Urgent01. Some I have found are listed here.

Diffs from User:John Vandenberg in the talk page: ,,,

There was a long discussion between User:Akuvar and User:Urgent01 in talk page with title "Repeated reversion of entire article on TVF", but User:Urgent01 deleted it some few days ago.

I have strong suspicion that User:Urgent01 is the same than user User:6324xxxx who was blocked from the same article. There is a very strong parallelism between both and often use the same words and tactics. For instance user User:6324xxxx also deleted the edit warns and 3R warns at his talk page with the words "remove vandalism" ,.

User:6324xxxx also named the work of other editors as "crackpot pseudoscience", which is virtually the same flawed argument given by User:Urgent01. See for instance the edit summary here.

There is more parallelisms. For instance both users delete exactly the same words at the same parts (check those two, where both users, User:Urgent01 and User:6324xxxx, delete the words "specializing in celestial mechanics" in the same place leaving intact the text around).

There is more, but before doing a more detailed comparison. I would know if this is the correct place or I would open some notice in another part (I am new to Wikipedia) JuanR (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Reportee for 48 hours for his second 3RR violation in under 24 hours, the reporter for 12 hours for a 3RR violation but fewer reverts. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?


 * You blocked me "for 12 hours for a 3RR violation". Sorry if I do not understand well this policy, but I reverted once the day 30 September and twice the day 2 October . Either I am completely wrong or all sum a total of three reverts spanned in three days. Where are the "four reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period"? Thank you. JuanR (talk) 11:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Winstonlighter reported by User:John Smith's (Warned)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1st revert: 14:11, 3 October 2010
 * 2nd revert: 14:51, 3 October 2010
 * 3rd revert: 17:59, 3 October 2010
 * 4th revert: 14:22, 4 October 2010
 * 5th revert: 14:50, 4 October 2010
 * 6th revert: 19:36, 4 October 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 14:56, 4 October 2010

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page - see article talk page (substantive discussions concerning his edits).

Comments:

Winstonlighter has a strange approach to the Senkaku Islands article. He frequently demands that "consensus" be obtained before certain edits are made, and he will roll-back edits that he doesn't agree with insisting that editors gain consensus. Yet he will not use the talk page unless forced to. In a recent series of discussions on the talk page, a reorganisation of the territorial claims section was made. User:DXDanl put some work into this, and whilst I didn't agree with all of his points I at least supported his attempts to improve things.

Winston then later rejoined the page, retrospectively objected to the changes and rolled them back. After having many objections to this, he attempted to keep some edits but insisted on reverting to a format style used some weeks ago because supposedly it might stir up editwarring, despite the fact that there was no trouble. I rolled back those reverts earlier today, as the headings had been changed to unhelpful titles like "China claims" depsite the fact that they're supposed to represent those for both China and Taiwan. Winston then reverted again, not making it clear that he was reverting the ordering of the claims (i.e. China before Japan) rather than the specific headings and organisation of text. I reverted once more, believing that he was again undoing hard work conducted on the article and then realised what he was reverting - so I stopped. Winston continued editing/reverting, so I was unable to roll-back my own reversion.

Whilst Winston hasn't technically violated the 3RR rule as he hasn't reverted 4 times within 24 hours, I feel that he is gaming the system and making hosts of reversions that are potentially disruptive. Until his recent edits we were moving towards improving the article. Now he seems to insist on changing things as he wants them, and everyone else must gain "consensus" (i.e. he must agree) before any changes he doesn't like are made. I have tried to reason with him as the expensive discussions on the talk page show, but I don't know what to do. He even claimed that I had to get an admin before I reverted again. As he only seems to respect admins, what else can I do? I'm not even asking for a block, just an admin to tell him to stop edit-warring and live by his own rules - gain consensus before he makes substantive changes. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Editor has not significantly edit warred since the warning (unhelpful attitude notwithstanding), so no block. However, I will certainly leave a warning, and feel free to re-report if the edit warring continues. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, for the record I should have mentioned this warning as well a few weeks ago. He should know the rules. though if no further action is taken that's fine. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No further action is warranted. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood, thanks. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 23:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

If any adminstrators decide to moderate this article, please get familiar with the recent changes there. In the recent months, the article has experienced futitle efforts on changing the contentious name ordering in the article, which have been regarded as vandalism which led into a lengthy discussion and massive reverts by many editors including adminstrators.

However, the article has experienced futitle efforts on changing name ordering before gaining any consensus. John Smith's, along with some other new users, is invovled in changing all these, but all those efforts have been reverted by a lot of editors including adminstrators,. Since 9 September (see the revision history) I've personally reverted any pro-China or pro-Japan name ordering before gaining consensus.

When user:Magog the Ogre issued the warning and said that he's uninvolved in the article, he probably means he's neutral. If that's your position, note that WP:EW states clearly that 3-Reverts rule doesn't apply to vandalism.

In fact, the reverts above simply show that how I stopped vandalism while keeping other efforts. And it's been done with tons of discussions. John Smith's removal of the fact that Japanese lost the second world war  has been discussed for 10 days and disputed unanimously by other editors. 10 days later when I rephrased this background and put it back, it has been reverted again without any explanations. If that's what Magog the Ogre means "not engaging in gaining consensus", you'll make fool of everyone seriously getting consensus.

In recent months, this article also attracts handfuls of new users who seldom edits other articles but actively involved in only this article. If you're interested at moderating this article, please run a checkuser on them too. The English style (and one of their names) of DXDanl and ScorchingPheonix are similar to  Phoenix7777 and John Smith's.

I'm not that interested at playing politics in Wikipedia and toying with the wikipedia guidelines but it doesn't mean I agree anyone trying to trap an uninvolved adminstrators who are not famiilar with the style of vandalism in this article. --Winstonlighter (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Dispute
Please stop edit warring on this page. As an uninvolved administrator, I can confirm you are edit warring and not engaging in consensus building. If I see you edit war at all anymore on this page in the next few days before true consensus is obtained, you will be blocked. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This warning is disputed because it contradicts with other editors (including adminstrators) efforts on removing vandalism in the recent months. . It's not important if an adminstrator is uninvolved in the article, it matters if he's familiar with the vandalism happened in this article and the efforts of other editors (including administrators) on removing those vandalism. --Winstonlighter (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The 'Warning' in the result field simply records the action which was taken by the admin who closed the 3RR report. You should not revert that, because it is like modifying a comment left by another editor. If you are unhappy with the action taken by the admin, you should open a report at WP:ANI and explain why you think his decision was wrong. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Response by warning administrator
Contrary to your assertions, Winston, John Smith's actions were not vandalism. According to WP:NOTVAND, even disruptive editing and NPOV violations do not count as vandalism, and your assertions to the contrary only hurt your cause (my experience is people terming a content dispute as "vandalism" are near universally stubborn and disruptive themselves). And your assertion on your talk page that you were reverting legitimate vandalism not related to this edit war is patently false (edit summary: restore vandalism on stable name ordering...) Therefore, when you are reverting another user's non-vandalism edits, it becomes an edit war.

If you believe that there is sockpuppetry, please open a case at WP:SSP, but hurling around accusations of sockpuppetry without good evidence or good reason to file a report will only poison the atmosphere and frankly it is uncivil. I also recommend filing carefully, as opening up frivolous sock puppet investigations is seen as poor form. Just because an editor disagrees with you does not mean there is a conspiracy afoot.

Please remember, other editors engaging in edit warring is no excuse for you to do so as well. In addition, I see you have more reverts than anybody else. And if you disagree on something, you should be going through WP:Dispute Resolution before making the edits. The world is not going to explode if one name is listed before another; Wikipedia is not the UN. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

contradiction among admins

 * Magog's explanation contradicts with other adminstrators' actions.
 * In recent months this article has experienced futitle efforts and edit warring on changing the name ordering. All those changes have been reverted to a stable ordering by editors including adminstrators.
 * I seriously suggest you to join the discussion in talk page, get familiar with the article, read the revision history and know about what other admins and editors have done.
 * If you look at the reverts above seriosuly, those reverts cover different parts of articles. Some of my reverts were disputed by other editors who said that I made a mistake by canceling their efforts on improving the article, but they never said that the cancellation of changes on name ordering was wrong. In response to it, I've spent some time at keeping all recent changes while removing vandalism.
 * By describing a user who disputes your decision "stubborn","discruptive", I think Magog begins to assume that this appeal on his decisions is trying to cause troubles instead of looking for guidelines for future conflicts and avoiding edit warring in this highly contentious topic. Keep good faiths. Use lesser adjectives. --Winstonlighter (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Cruzado123 reported by User:Green-eyed girl (Result: 9 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alberto_Contador&action=historysubmit&diff=388337951&oldid=388325721


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

There was no talk page discussion before 3RR was broken, but there were repeated attempts to initiate discussion made in edit summaries by User:Severo.

Comments: It's possible Cruzado123 is a sock. These are the only edits he's ever made. I think he may be User:128.36.102.14, who also reverted the Contador article to remove this content. Of course, I can't say that with absolute certainty. Green-eyed girl ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 04:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Trying to avoid biting, while maintaining order at the same time. Courcelles 04:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

User:MUCHERS22 reported by User:Nsk92 (Result: 60 days)
Page:

User being reported:

This is an edit warring rather than a 3RR report. User:MUCHERS22 has been extensively edit warring on Nuclear program of Iran for the last week, and repeatedly re-inserting edits that have been contested by other users - please see the article's history log. The relevant sections at the talk page of the article are Talk:Nuclear program of Iran and Talk:Nuclear program of Iran. The user has been warned about edit warring on this page as well as quite a few times before that. He has several recent lengthy blocks for edit warring. I have also tried, rather patiently, to explain to him the basics of WP:CONSENSUS at my talk page, see the lengthy exchange here. However, apparently he still does not get it and has continued to edit-war. Nsk92 (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:, Talk:Nuclear program of Iran and Talk:Nuclear program of Iran

Comments:

NSK92 you have still failed to adress why you delete my recend add. You even told me PressTv were a Iranian gov press release channel. When I confronted you with this was wrong you got silent and threat to ban me. Also, you have still failed to understand that the blocks in my history doesnt have anything to do with this. There is no accumulation.


 * as this user has been blocked so many times in the past for similar actions. Nsk92... I almost blocked you as well. Had my finger on the button... but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt under the poorly sourced BLP exemption to the edit warring rules.  But you shouldn't rely on that in the future, as this was pretty tenuous.  Courcelles 19:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Addendum, not that it makes much difference, but I actually typed it in the block form as 60 days, not 2 months. Courcelles 19:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Err, thanks for the warning. I did revert him 3 times today on the Nuclear program of Iran article - but I was removing a new and contested edit rather than re-adding a new no consensus contested edit, as MUCHERS22 was doing. Plus I did start a new thread at the article's talk page where I explained my objections to MUCHERS22's edit. Nsk92 (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Doncram reported by User:Blueboar (Result: No violation)
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:

Doncram and I got off to a bad start on another article (List of Masonic buildings)... and I think there is some lack of good faith on his part. Now, whenever we cross paths, his first reaction to reject any edit I make and revert it. ... He did this at Canton Viaduct and at Masonic Temple (Lahore). He is not interested in anyone's views but his own. Blueboar (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sheesh. The topic of this article and whether Masonites met there or not was already discussed at Talk:List of Masonic buildings, where Blueboar first asserted no Masonic association, then later had to acknowledge association given postings by other editors, but then denies that the place is a meeting hall.  It is a meeting hall / auditorium venue, like many Masonic places elsewhere, which are used by the Masonites and also rented out for other uses.  The first asserted revert above is not one, it is a provision of a fully adequate reference to clear a citation needed tag, using the reference provided in the discussion at the List of Masonic buildings article.  Thereafter, Blueboar inserted citation needed 3 times and, after more than adequate discussion to explain that, i removed it, i guess three times i am surprised to see.  The point is that Blueboar is on a tear to challenge items in the List of Masonic buildings article, and hence he is inserting citation needed tags elsewhere where they are not needed, or relevant, as if to force out information that would be relevant for his satisfaction in the list-article.  Blueboar has forced more than 500,000 bytes of discussion at the list-article talk page now!  And double that if you add all the ANI and wp:RSN and wp:V and other noticeboard discussions he has opened.  This is the same editor who has tendentiously asserted that places named Masonic Temples have no Masonite association, and many other crying wolf type assertions that have been disproved and/or rejected by others following.  Here, I believe he seeks to claim, absurdly, that the Masonic group rented space elsewhere for their meetings or met outside.  At that level of absurdity, the burden of proof should be on him, to prove the absurd claim.  The claims in the article are basically sourced by the sources in the article, and there is no need for further sourcing.  I really can't stand this.  Note, i was building a simple decent article about a notable place, and not wanting to engage in further discussion about list-article inclusion standards.  Fellow editors are telling him to stop beating a dead horse with that, too. --doncram (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Blueboar, two of the diffs aren't even reverts. They are attempts to revise the text to satisfy your requests. Have you considered opening an RFC to determine consensus for what kinds of sources are needed for calling something Masonic? I strongly considered blocking you for edit warring. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll accept the decision, although I disagree with it. This is frustrating... Essentially you are telling Doncram that he may continue his bad faith reverts. Any time I raise a concern or make an edit to an article he is also involved in, his first reaction is to revert... and then he drags in our past conflicts at List of Masonic buildings.  This has NOTHING to do with that list.  My concerns in this article are grounded in policy... saying things based on logical assumption rather than verification.  WP:V makes it clear... the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth.  It does not matter whether it is logical (or even accurate) to assume that a group meets in a building it owns and has offices in... if we are going to include a statement to that effect, what is needed is a source that verifies the statement.  I have tried leaving the statement with a citation request... I have tried alternative wording that resolves the issue.  It is Doncram who repeatedly returns the article to its unsourced state.  I was under the impression that this was considered a revert, even though he may tweak the language a bit without actually addressing the core issue.  Blueboar (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you're feeling frustrated, but I must remind you of the first bullet under "listing instructions" here. You have a larger dispute than is covered within the walls of this noticeboard. Pursue dispute resolution, please. You reported someone for edit warring/3RR and I'm saying you don't have an actionable report, at least the action you were looking for. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 22:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Update: Blueboar is now blocked.  Blueboar above "accepted" the decision, but 4 minutes later(!) Blueboar re-edited the article, removing the mention of Masonics meeting at their building, certainly a continuation! And was blocked for 24 hours for edit warring by User:SarekOfVulcan, who had already advised him to stop.I was earlier browsing in past ANI discussions which Blueboar had opened, in order possibly to provide links, and came across this:

"After about 40 discussion sections on that article alone, and many related ones, I no longer believe that any good interpretation of fact or wikipedia policy, or any proposal for anything, even if agreed upon by consensus of all, will stick for any amount of time. Anything settled will be reopened. I don't have infinite patience for this."
 * That was what i said within Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive633 ANI report opened by Blueboar. I nonetheless would have thought an agreement could have lasted at least 5 minutes tho. --doncram (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Zhou Yu reported by User:Macwhiz (Result: 5 days)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: Edit summary: "If that's the case, then you need to prove your claim. Otherwise, what you're saying is currently unsourced."
 * 2nd revert: Edit summary: "No resolution has been reached yet -- do not revert again!"
 * 3rd revert: Edit summary: "Nope. It should be left with the periods. You seem to be another user that likes causing trouble for me!"

Editor also engaged in a not-quite-3RR edit war earlier in the week, again with uncivil edit summaries and no talk-page discussion:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page:

Comments:

Based on comments by in their user warning to Zhou Yu, this user has also been engaging in inappropriate editing behavior on three other pages. I'm reporting this before it is a precise 3RR violation because mucking about with the MOS in this fashion seems like a Bad Idea. I've opened a discussion on the contentious topic in question here. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * given the importance of the page and the user's history of edit warring blocks. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   02:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, this has evidently been going on for a while. 48 hours seems a little lenient. Extended to five days. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   02:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Arzel reported by User:PrBeacon (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version:


 * 1st revert: 18:25, 1 October 2010  (edit summary: "Remove bad faith edit which is being used as an attempt to WP:GAME WP:SUMMARY")
 * 2nd revert: 20:55, 1 October 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 388152076 by Blaxthos (talk)I disagree.  This edit was being used to WP:GAME the system.  Take it to talk.")
 * 3rd revert: 19:58, 2 October 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 388167901 by Blaxthos (talk)I specifically dispute the allegation, and the WP:POINT that you are trying to make.")
 * 4th revert: 19:34,  4 October 2010  (edit summary: "This was orignially put in by Virinditis (sp) at the begining of a continued edit war without any consensus for inclusion.  It should have been reverted immiediately.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Relevant talk page section:

Comments:

User continues to remove lead summary of criticism -- which was also posted to the Criticisms section of the main article Fox News Channel, where User is also attempting to remove it: - PrBeacon (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 18:24, 1 October 2010  (edit summary: "/* Criticism and controversies */ Remove bad faith edit.  You don't make a disputed edit to the sub-page and then claim that WP:SUMMARY allows this edit to be made.")
 * 19:38, 4 October 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 388736905 by PrBeacon (talk)No concensus.  Go to the FNC controversy page for discussion.")


 * For continuing to edit war before the last protection and on this one (thanks dailykos). I warn you, however, as the reporter on this board, that you too are quite close to becoming blocked yourself. Please do not continue to edit war or you too risk being blocked. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In retrospect I realize I should not have made my 2nd edit after his 4th revert before lodging this complaint, so I apologize for that. The editor has a history of reverting others before (or instead of) discussing it on the talkpage, if he discusses it at all -- contrary to his userspace claims. For the record I note that, after the block he insulted 2 admins and lied about the talkpage discussion   -- only to seem contrite after he was unblocked. - PrBeacon (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is done, but I have to note that the supposed 3RR warning was from the 29th of September, prior to any of the reverts. Just how do you warn someone for something that has happened yet?  Isn't that a little disingenious?  Oh, and this warning was after my first edit to that page in some time.  Arzel (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Varma0440 reported by User:Anandks007 (Result: 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User already banned once for repeat section blanking. See Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive140. Repeating same vandalism again. Axxn (talk) 05:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I blocked this editor previously for edit warring on the same article. Varma0440 has reverted this article 13 times since mid-September. He never participates on article talk pages. I suggest that the next admin action should be an indef block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I also warned him that if a third block is required for the same behaviour, it will be indef. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

User:LogicKey reported by User:intgr (Result: See below)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1st notice 2nd notice invitation to start a discussion notice about 3rr/edit war final edit war warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Already discussed in the past, consensus reached here: Talk:TrueCrypt

Comments:

Single-purpose account. The user systematically deletes the section from the TrueCrypt article exactly once per day. I have asked him to join the discussion on the talk page, in my edit comments as well as his/her user talk page, but (s)he has not responded. -- intgr [talk] 16:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * See below. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

User:LogicKey reported by Nuwewsco (talk) (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 17:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 1st revert: 14:54, 30 September 2010
 * 2) 2nd revert: 17:02,  1 October 2010
 * 3) 3rd revert: 17:10,  1 October 2010
 * 4) 4th revert: 15:44,  2 October 2010
 * 5) 5th revert: 15:03,  3 October 2010
 * 6) 6th revert: 15:43,  4 October 2010
 * 7) 7th revert: 14:43,  5 October 2010
 * 8) 8th revert: 15:38,  6 October 2010


 * Diff of warning: here (multiple warnings given, together with requests to discuss first)

Comments:

User:LogicKey has repeatedly deleted sections from the TrueCrypt article, despite numerous requests from multiple editors to talk through and discuss his deletions first. LogicKey may not technically have breached WP:3RR, though is clearly edit warring here, without any attempt being made to gain consensus.

—Nuwewsco (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Hauskalainen reported by User:Eraserhead1 (Result: 12h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: - I've just realised this might point at the wrong version, but everything else should be clear. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert: part of this - IMO the second part is OK
 * 4th revert:

All within the last 36 hours.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User keeps removing the word mosque from the lead which is against consensus on the talk page. Their edits have been reverted by 3 different users. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked because there was a 3RR violation, only 12 hours because it was hardly the most heated edit war I've ever seen and because they seemed to be making constructive edits in between the reverting. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Fleetham reported by User:Mhalberstam (Result: no vio)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I put this in my comments of undoing his changes, so I don't know that I can link to it.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Latest comment: Latest response by Fleetham:

Comments:

The latest majority (although slight) is in favor of Savoriness. Previous discussions on the subject had also agreed to Savoriness (as of last year). Fleetham believes he/she has given proof for the choice of "umami", but has no supporters of their comments (yet several against them), and does not address the counter-claims against what I think are faulty proofs. Fleetham's latest claims state that "current" usage precedes the earlier agreement, but most of the articles referred to are older than the decision made against Umami last year.

I do not feel that Fleetham is being receptive to discussion, and is just deciding to favor their own side without any substantial backing. It is Fleetham's "belief" vs. common usage. There are no responses to anyone else's points against "umami", just a declaration that they are justified, and an undo to the page.

I also felt that my choice to favor scientific links over promotional / sellers association links when redundant, but Fleetham is also favoring those links as well. I don't want to be accusatory, but other anti-savory folks in the past have admitted to wanting to "advance the usage of the word", and I wonder if this is another case of that. I am for clarity and accessability in the wikipedia, but if it causes the commercial aspect of an article to fall, then I have no issue with that either. (It is obvious looking at Fleetham's vast edits on the page that the edits are not just to promote Umami. Deleted ridiculousness on my part, but still stand by my other statements.)

(Sorry for the awkward gender-insensitive English above)

Mhalberstam (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Nobody has exceeded 3RR here, and there is plenty of discussion, and there is not yet enough edit warring that I think the page would need protection. I will keep an eye on this for the next few days. Please, both of you, wait for consensus among the other editors at that page. - 2/0 (cont.) 11:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Orlady reported by User:Novaseminary (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: (page move, removal of main link to Pre-tertiary education accreditation, among other things)
 * 2nd revert:  (removal of main link to Pre-tertiary education accreditation, among other things)
 * 3rd revert: (removal of specificty based on source in seocnd paragraph, removal of main link to Pre-tertiary education accreditation, among other things)
 * 4th revert: (removal of fact tags without adding source, reinsertion of text regarding the development of educational accreditation, removal of source (not a good one, and I agree with the removal, but it was put in place by another ed))
 * 5th revert: (reinsertion of text split to Pre-tertiary education accreditation, among other edits)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Orlady also violated 3RR on a related page within the last 24 hours, at Regional accreditation as I noted on her talk page here, even if one or two of her reverions were caused by uncorrected edit conflicts. This seemed excusable, so I did not report it.

This all started when Orlady discovered a page move (by me) and minor repurposing of an article (by another ed, after notice put on talk without comment). She acted first, and asked questions later (see my talk). For more on this, read here at ANI. Despite my objection which was never addressed, Orlady implemented a series of article moves that, to my mind, confounds the edits history. This was the beginning of the problem at this article today. I would note that I am at 3 reversions at this page (and had been at Regional accreditation in the last 24 hours, so I will not be further reverting Orlady. And I asked her to self-revert about a half hour ago to no avail. I think these issues will play themselves out at the talk page (with an RfC is needed), so long as Orlady stops removing the link to the article she seeks to merge. Ideally she would work to improve that article (Pre-tertiary education accreditation) so that, if her proposal carried the day, it will be a clean merger.

Novaseminary (talk) 05:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Link to now-archived AN/I discussion. I think that this is a case of normal editing with some edit conflicts and a little disagreement over which "default state during discussion" should be used, but I am leaving this open for another admin's opinion. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would more readily accept this if this were one instance as initially it was on Regional accreditation as noted above, though even there, Orlady continued after the debatable technical violation. But this was at least two edits over the limit, on a second article after having made a series of contested page moves without consensus. Admins should be held to the same standards as other eds. I was just as frustrated by the edit conflict, yet, I have been able to avoid violating 3RR. Based on Orlady's comments on my talk (before actually reading the relevant article talk ("I am not a happy camper. I'm reverting your edits.") and in edit summaries on Educational accreditation ("I don't want to link to Pre-tertiary education accreditation for several reasons"... without first noting those reasons on talk) indicates to me that there are some WP:OWN problems here, as well as a troubling disregard for 3RR. Novaseminary (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Alleged revert #1 was one of a series of edits that I made (not very expertly, I admit) to repair the page history of Educational accreditation after Novaseminary had renamed that page, then created a new page under the original title. Those changes were based on the "how-to" advice I received in response to my query at ANI. Novaseminary doesn't think I should have done those repairs, per his comments at User talk:Orlady. I guess because I did a "revert" as part of that process, s/he feels that I was firing the first salvo in an edit war. Alleged revert #2 actually combines a couple of edits. The edit summary on the first one said "Continuing the changes that I was in the middle of making when I got a bright orange notice about a message on my talk page from Novaseminary. I don't want to link to Pre-tertiary education accreditation for several reasons (not just AdvancED)." I was continuing to try to sort the fallout of the move process, but had been interrupted in order to reply to Novaseminary on my talk page. While I was replying, s/he made some changes on Educational accreditation, which s/he apparently believes makes it possible to label my next edits to that page as edit warring. In alleged revert #3, I had dug up a couple of paragraphs of content that had been deleted from the article (and not moved anywhere else) as part of another user's initiative (a few weeks back) to narrow the article's scope. In the 12 minutes between #2 and #3, Novaseminary had made 3 other minor edits to the article, which I saw (and reviewed) when the "Edit conflict" warning came up. There was some incompatibility between those changes and the changes I was trying to save, and I believed that one of his minor wording changes resulted in an incorrect statement, so I kept some of the changes and overwrote others. After that edit, Novaseminary pointedly slapped two "fact" templates on two successive sentences in the article -- the second of those templates was directly in front of a footnote to a reference citation. Alleged revert #4 is a series of 7 separate edits thereafter in which I added text and reference citations -- and yes, I removed those two "fact" templates. After that, while I worked on drafting some additional sourced content for the article, Novaseminary showed up and moved some big chunks of content to a different article that he had created a day or two ago. My edit summary for the new material I was adding was going to say "I'm adding the international info (bare-link refs for now because it's bedtime for me)", but when I saw the umpteenth "Edit conflict" screen of the evening and discovered that most of the paragraph that I had been working on revising had disappeared during the 15 minutes since my last edit, I revised my summary to say "Yet another edit conflict! I'm adding the international info (bare-link refs for now because it's bedtime for me) to the paragraph I was working on...". And then I went to bed. Novaseminary apparently didn't believe my "bedtime" comment, based on the pot-stirring additions s/he made to my talk page over the next several hours: User talk:Orlady.... --Orlady (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sheesh! Shame on me for trying to create content instead of wikidrama, and shame on me for going to bed last night instead of staying up all night to see what new wikidrama Novaseminary would try to start overnight!
 * Uh... I don't know where and how you are going to sort out this mess, but it isn't here. No one is getting blocked for edit warring, and the pages aren't going to be protected (at least not yet). Please continue on the consensus path. Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There are several justifications for exceeding 3 reverts in 24 hours listed at WP:3RR. Orlady does not invoke any of them. She could have used template:inuse to avoid edit conflicts (I did when editing the related Pre-tertiary education accreditation). As for "creating content", the reason I split the articles was to allow them to grow, not to stifle growth. This is a series of articles that has had significant POV problems over the years. Orady herself has worked to stem that flood. My effort was merely to create a structure and consistency to the articles that would allow such POV to most easily be exposed, removed, and replaced with good sourced material. There is no reason we can't work with each other instead of against each other (as I tried to do by adding sources to a new, valuable stub Orlady created). But if we violate 3RR, that becomes difficult. And Orlady's or my motives are not terribly relevant to a 3RR issue. She violated 3RR without one of the consensus-approved reasons. Novaseminary (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Demonik187 reported by BOVINEBOY 2008 (Result: semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 08:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
 * 1) 07:08,  7 October 2010  (edit summary: "Added spoiler notation before the story summary.  I was so upset this was included in the article without a spoiler tag, I made an account and edited it myself.")
 * 2) 07:36,  7 October 2010  (edit summary: "added spoiler tag again.  do not remove it this time unless you can provide me a good reason for doing so.")
 * 3) 07:48,  7 October 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 389273143 by Bovineboy2008 (talk)")
 * 4) 07:58,  7 October 2010  (edit summary: "Regarding disclaimers:  "This guideline represents a solid and long-standing consensus on English Wikipedia. It hasn't been elevated to the status of policy..."")
 * 5) 08:04,  7 October 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 389275182 by 69.181.249.92 (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

— BOVINEBOY 2008 08:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No further edits by this account since the 3RR warning. There might be a sock puppetry case to be made here, but I am semi-protecting the article instead. The game was just released, so active editors are requested to be especially vigilant for vandalism and other nonconstructive edits while still being appropriately welcoming to the newcomers. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

User:RomanHistorian reported by User:Andrew c (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I'm an involved admin, so I recuse myself from any admin action. Pretty straight forward set of 4 reverts in 9 hours.Andrew c [talk] 16:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Blocked 31 hours for 3RR violation by User:Rklawton. EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Cxw888 reported by User:Macwhiz (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:, also as anon IP from

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's talk page:

Comments:

User has been consistently removing the AfD template (despite being warned not to do so) and adding complaints to the top of the article page rather than the talk page. Attempts to be helpful and to warn the user have not worked. User is not contributing to the AfD discussion or the BLP/N discussion, either. As user is currently using an anon IP to essentially vandalize the page, I suggest that it be semiprotected as well as having Cxw888 blocked. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - 24 hours to Cxw888 for edit warring. The page has been semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Ledenierhomme reported by User:Nableezy(Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 19:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
 * 1) 17:07,  7 October 2010  (edit summary: "added criticism section") Rv of this
 * 2) 19:02,  7 October 2010  (edit summary: "peacocking") Rv of this
 * 3) 19:05,  7 October 2010  (edit summary: "please do not remove sourced material. A polemical writer is open to criticism from advocacy groups.") Rv of this. This reinserted material removed as a BLP violation.
 * 4) 19:08,  7 October 2010  (edit summary: "if you have an objection, raise it on Talk; please stop reverting") rv of this. This reinserted material removed as a BLP violation.
 * 5) 19:22,  7 October 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 389376318 by Nableezy (talk) there you go again") rv of this. This reinserted material removed as a BLP violation.

I asked the user to self-revert the last revert of BLP violating material, their response was to label my request "vandalism".

The material itself is discussed on the talk page here. After a BLP issue is raised the user makes no comments on the talk page and continues to revert to include material removed as a BLP violation disregarding WP:BLP

—<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Administrator will see that user "nableezy" is also edit-warring and in gross violation of the 3RR. He simply removed/reverted my edits without engaging on the talk page. - Ledenierhomme (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That is, simply put, a lie. I have written on the talk page about this issue whereas you refused to do so. Also, see the BLP exception at WP:3RR. Material removed as a BLP violation does not count as a revert and WP:BLP requires that you gain consensus for returning material removed as a BLP violation, something you did not do as you repeatedly restored the BLP violating material. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What I can see here is a tag editing by a few users againstuser:Ledenierhomme. I believe no block is required. The article should be protected until the differences are resolved on discussion page.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's nice. A user repeatedly reinserting material removed as a BLP violation is not a problem, it is everybody else. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Since this report was filed the user has continued to revert. this revert once again reinserted material removed as a BLP vio, and this was a revert of this. That is now 4 different reverts consisting of material removed as a BLP violation being reinserted and an additional 3 unrelated reverts. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The BLP exception at 3RR says "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption". Did you take that into account when you reverted 4 times in the last hour? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I did. Also, WP:BLP explicitly says that material removed as a BLP violation must have consensus to be included prior to it being reinserted. This user both failed to gain that consensus and did not even attempt to until after this report was filed. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that WP:BLP allows the removal of any material critical of a living person that is cited only to camera.org, which is not a reliable source. In my opinion User:Ledenierhomme should be blocked for 3RR violation unless he will agree to stay off this article for thirty days. EdJohnston (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Clear edit-warring and a repeat offence. As for Nableezy. I have trouble seeing these reverts as being justified on the BLP exemption to 3RR. The material is negative. But it is not stated as fact; it is stated as CAMERA's opinion. As unreliable as CAMERA may be as a source, it is a reliable source for its own opinion. The inclusion of this material is a NPOV/balance issue. I am inclined to block but will leave this open for 30 minutes to hear other views before doing so. Mkativerata (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Using an unreliable source to include negative material about living people does not become acceptable simply because you write "according to, ...". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems like something that should have been resolved at WP:BLP/N, not by an edit war. WP:BLP says "Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption." No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Or on the talk page. I wrote a comment about this source on the talk page. This user reverted an additional 3 times prior to even responding on the talk page. WP:BLP requires the aggressive removal of poorly sourced contentious material about living people. Had this user even given the impression of being willing to discuss this we would not be here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * in respect of nableezy. I have my doubts about the applicability of the BLP exemption, as above, especially as that exemption is only intended for clear cases. On the other hand, nableezy clearly believed in good faith that the reverts were covered by the exemption, and others would seem to agree (see Ed.Johnston's comment on my talk page). There is no real dispute that the source for the negative material is unreliable. The note that an editor should consider posting difficult BLP issues to BLP/N is not a mandatory requirement, although it would have been a very helpful step to take here before edit-warring. In light of that, a block is not warranted. Mkativerata (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Doc Tropics reported by Anon (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 23:43, 6 October 2010  (edit summary: "rv x2")
 * 2nd revert: 17:56, 7 October 2010  (edit summary: "The individual IS notable and we DO have an article about him, another about one of his books, and a third about his organization. That looks like notability x3, so please stop removing this item")
 * 3rd revert: 18:12, 7 October 2010  (edit summary: "there are clearly THREE links within this text, all notable. even if there weren't that doesn't mean that he is not notable. please stop deleting and come to talkpage")
 * 4th revert: 20:03, 7 October 2010  (edit summary: "/* Former Muslims * /adding  Faith Freedom International a group/movement of former Muslims critical of Islam.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User is already familar with 3RR.

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

Comments: Perhaps in violation WP:Point, the editor in the final revert added an organization to a list of individuals, i.e. former Muslims, and omitted mentioning Ali Sina in an attempt to get around 3rr. 68.197.167.149 (talk) 23:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I only count three clear reverts. That, combined with the fact that the edit war seems to have ended nearly four hours ago, leads me to believe that no action is necessary at this time. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly certain that the last revert is a partial revert. 68.197.167.149 (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Binksternet reported by User:Ginelli (Result: Reporter blocked)
Page:

User being reported: User submitting the report:

[]

Previous version reverted to: []


 * 1st revert:
 * 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:


 * One revert of an unconstructive edit does not an edit war make. This report appears malicious and the reporter has repeatedly reverted on the same article. Seems to be a case of WP:FOOT. Reporter blocked for 2 weeks. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you mean WP:BOOMERANG. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW this seems to be a bit harsh (two weeks) for not even a violation of 3RR, and when other editors were using the rollback tool and misaccusing the reporter of vandalism. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah that was the shortcut I was after. The reporter has a previous block for edit warring, this report seemed malicious to me and the edits didn't seem constructive. All that combined, I don;t think 2 weeks was too harsh. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   03:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Ginelli wants to change the definition of the San Francisco Bay Area to call it simply the Bay Area, and to highlight the importance of San Jose. He has not been able to persuade anyone else to support his view. So far his changes are always reverted, but he keeps making them anyway. A sample edit from August 3 is here. His campaign started in June, and has persisted in spite of many warnings and one previous edit-warring block. Background can be seen here and in his block log. If he won't stop trying to force the article to his version after three months of warnings, what else is there for admins to do? EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * They'll edit war themselves into an indef if they carry on like that. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   04:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with HJ Mitchell: I believe from his article interactions that Ginelli will edit war himself into indef block. Two weeks is not too harsh. Binksternet (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

User:PiCo reported by User:John J. Bulten (Result: Dispute resolution)
Pages:, , , , ,

User being reported:

Not a 3RR but a clear ongoing edit war of at least 11 reversions by PiCo. Other reversions are by Dylan Flaherty, who if he was warring has stopped for now, and Dougweller, who is usually reasonable, but they are included for context, because they all rely on each other for claims of consensus, and all three have been named in a pending mediation that I seconded (ADD: yes, I named Doug myself), relating to one of these articles (note the requesting editor has nearly given up due to being constantly reverted; this claim of reversions is wholly additional to everything below). While talk at the ancient history article has been building new consensus, PiCo has thoroughly mixed up that consensus as described here, which appears to me to be the last straw in an edit war. PiCo also has significant history of being warned for warring on this very topic (e.g. Battle of Jericho); I have also had minor warlike scrapes with PiCo in the past at longevity myths, with similar behavior. PiCo's probable WP:STALKing hounding may also be considered, as there would have been no other apparent reason for the undo at Shabbat without having seen my edit summary in my contribution history. My attempts to restore my own various versions in all this may naturally be considered as well. Many of PiCo's reversions are distinguished by restoring the misspelling "Killebrew, Anne" for "Killebrew, Ann E.".

This all started because PiCo inserted about 10 sentences suddenly into Joshua, cribbing from History of ancient Israel and Judah, and I observed that every one made WP:SYNthetic claims not in the sources present. PiCo's failure to cite the article cribbed from may be a violation of the copyright-attribution rules, and it may have happened again with the sudden insertion today, as I have not taken time to review it in detail. The entire series of reverts on the first three articles arose solely from my attempts to fix PiCo's verification failures. Doug and Dylan tentatively agreed to (very slow) one-by-one consideration, which appeared to reach consensus on the first two, but PiCo's last edit thoroughly mixed up the history of this consensus. Certain disingenuousness in edit summaries on PiCo's part will be obvious.

History of ancient Israel and Judah:
 * 26 Sep PiCo reverts to
 * 27 Sep PiCo reverts to
 * 27 Sep Dylan reverts to same
 * 29 Sep Dylan reverts to
 * 29 Sep PiCo reverts to same
 * 29 Sep Pico reverts to same
 * 30 Sep Doug partially reverts to but changes source as attempt toward consensus
 * 1 Oct PiCo reverts to
 * 1 Oct PiCo immediately following the prior reversion, continues by partial reversion to (undoing part of my edit)
 * 7 Oct PiCo partially reverts to (undoing part of my edit)
 * 7 Oct PiCo partially reverts further to same (undoing Doug's edit and part of my edit that Doug was enfolding)
 * 7 Oct PiCo immediately (4 minutes) following the prior reversion, abandons prior reverts and instead reverts to same version as reverted to on 29 Sep (link repeated), undoing a week of clear consensus-building improvements, and immediately makes sweeping new changes and at this hour continues to edit beyond this diff

Book of Joshua (prelude to above):
 * 26 Sep PiCo reverts to
 * 29 Sep PiCo makes numerous changes partially reverting to same (undoing almost all of my edits to "Authorship" based on PiCo's apparent agreement at talk)
 * 29 Sep Dylan reverts to
 * 30 Sep Dylan reverts to
 * 7 Oct Doug reverts to, apparently undoing my edit in full after intervening edits; this was resolved amicably, however
 * 8 Oct PiCo makes sweeping new changes, which include partially undoing my edit as to collared-rim jars that had stood since 30 Sep

Joshua (prelude to prelude):
 * 21 Sep Doug reverts to
 * 22 Sep PiCo reverts to (PiCo's version, further back than Doug's reversion)
 * 22 Sep Dylan reverts to same further-back version
 * 26 Sep Doug reverts to
 * 7 Oct Doug reverts to ; not yet resolved

History of Israel (war casualty):
 * 2 Oct PiCo partially reverts to (partially undoing my edit)
 * 2 Oct Doug partially reverts to same (partially undoing more of my same edit, although leaving a clause of mine not in the "revert-to" version)
 * 7 Oct Doug partially reverts to, though with differences (partially undoing my edit)

Authorship of the Bible (war casualty):
 * 29 Sep PiCo reverts to a blank lead (here's PiCo's prior version; this undid my edit to lead)
 * 29 Sep PiCo reverts to less 1 space
 * I have not analyzed the remaining fruitful article history for reversions of others

Shabbat (potential stalk hound):
 * 5 Oct PiCo reverts by blanking the paragraph (prior version; this partially undid my edit of 3 Sep)
 * 5 Oct PiCo reverts to ; I backed off my graf to see if anyone else would comment

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 21 Sep, 6 Oct

Link of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: most of Talk:History of ancient Israel and Judah

I would also appreciate advice on how to proceed after the ANEW case is closed. JJB 02:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this can be dealt with on the talk page. I'm not going to have the time to look at it all in detail for several days due to RL commitments, but I'm not always convinced you interpret consensus correctly (I'm thinking in part of your edit summaries which didn't reflect accurately what I'd said). Both of you get frustrated with each other, as do you and I at times. No drastic action is required at the moment, just patience. As for Shabat, not only do we not use the word 'stalk', both of you edit religious articles, and it's not uncommon for an editor who is not sure about the edits of another editor to take a look at their edits in related fields of interest. I see he's said he's going to discuss his edits on the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 03:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I should add, for any reviewing Admin, that this is also a pov disagreement, which isn't made cleare. I'm also a bit bothered about the statement I've been named in what appears to be a stale mediation case Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-09-20/Authors of the Bible. JJB did mention me, but person who brought it (who I notice has just been blocked for edit warring) did not name me and no one has notified me about anything to do with this case. Dougweller (talk) 03:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I give up trying to get any more sleep. It also occurs to me that the bit about sentence by sentence was proposed by me after JJB's bold (JJB's word) edit(s). An RfC on the talk page may be in order, although even that may not be necessary, but this is not the way to settle a content dispute, especially one where the editor seems to be in a minority of one. More people interested in the article would be nice, but we aren't going to get them through this means. Dougweller (talk) 04:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought I'd apologized appropriately for the one summary of what you'd said that you objected to.
 * This is not about frustration, this is about clear edit warring (constant and usually wholesale reversion over a period) and about moving mediation forward (the talk page is forward enough already).
 * It is uncommon for an editor looking at another's contributions to do a double-revert after having engaged in the same on several other articles, and that is (potential) hounding, by the policy.
 * Mediation is not stale, but new and unassigned.
 * I don't know whether Doug's being notified about "this case" refers to this ANEW report (I'm not reporting Doug) or the mediation (I notified Doug).
 * Being a minority of one (to the degree that's true) has no bearing when WP says something its sources don't say (to the degree that's true) and when the opposition is mostly bald assertions that WP does actually say what the sources say.
 * Your minor corrections of my hasty speech are appreciated and refactored, but:
 * All that does not mitigate the warring report nor the need for mediation. JJB 07:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * JJB, after reviewing all of these diffs, I wonder if it's entered your mind that you might be editing against consensus? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have left a note for PiCo with some ideas for closing this case. This is not a very intense dispute, but if PiCo continues to make large changes with little consultation, the situation may get worse. (Without speculating as to who is right, his changes are clearly large). His past blocks are all in this topic area, though closing this case without a block would be desirable. I suggest that whoever closes this report should wait for a response from PiCo. EdJohnston (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * RfC started, but it did appear today that there was some movement towards a compromise. Dougweller (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Dougweller's RfC is at Talk:History of ancient Israel and Judah. EdJohnston (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Dispute resolution. An RfC has been opened, and the people named here are urged to participate before reverting futher. Admins will retain the option of fully protecting one or more articles if we continue to see large reverts which are not adequately discussed. EdJohnston (talk) 00:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

User:169.253.4.21 reported by User:Daedalus969 (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

In regards to the above diff and diffs, it should be noted that the IP continuously referenced 3rr, so it is obvious they knew they were edit warring while they were doing so.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 07:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:, and here, another editor before me tries the same.

This report is not in regards to a violation of 3rr, but edit warring in general; to be specific, 'slow edit warring'. Since from the diffs it is apparent that the user is aware of 3rr, it could very well be seen as gaming the system. That aside, I would also like to note that this user has been personally attacking other users in their edit summaries, calling them vandals, etc.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 07:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Hello5678 reported by User:Akerans (Result: 24 h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1st warning, 2nd warning

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

Comments:


 * - 2/0 (cont.) 17:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

User:212.219.231.1 reported by User:Kintetsubuffalo (Result:Anon user blocked for 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

IP keeps adding huge unencyclopedic chunk despite removals by several editors.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:59, 9 October 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 report was incomplete, but I looked at the situation and blocked the anon IP for 24 hours. The anon had been contentious, had reached 4RR and had been warned (although only once). --Orlady (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

User:68.237.215.48 reported by User:Diannaa (Result: 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Original version:


 * 1st insertion:
 * 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: Mann Jess attempted to open discussion with teh IP but their remarks were removed by the IP. IP is posting endless rants on the talk pages of the other editors involved User:Mann jess and User:dave souza plus on the talk page of the article.

Comments:

This is very likely the same person as who has a dynamic IP and was blocked by Courcelles on Sept 19. I also had issues with the person in May but did not report it. -- Diannaa (Talk) 20:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Clear, fast-paced edit-warring, aggravated by removing comments of others attempting to engage the IP on the talk page. Mkativerata (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

User:24.151.113.86 reported by Financestudent (talk) (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 22:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 16:07,  9 October 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 389642554 by Rlantzy2112 (talk) Politicians of both sides will tell you that there is.")
 * 2) 20:20,  9 October 2010  (edit summary: "/* Clinton era */  Here's another source for ya: http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/eightyears-03.html")
 * 3) 22:18,  9 October 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 389777269 by Financestudent (talk) You were given another source.  Now, take your bias somewhere else.")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Financestudent (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

User was warned against vandalism and edit warring, they then re-removed disputed content, and removed my warning from their talk page. Additionally they were warned in the past week about edit warring on a different article but removed the warning from their talk page. Financestudent (talk) 22:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There is actually no 3RR violation here as there are only three reverts within 24 hours. But I've set a block due to general disruptive editing across the project, including at Alan Grayson. Removal of talk page messages, abusive edit summaries and no attempts to discuss disputes on article talk pages demonstrate that the user has no intention of editing collaboratively at this stage and needs to have editing privileges taken away for a period. Mkativerata (talk) 22:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

IP-hopping editor 79.116.206–209.xxx reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Rangeblock two months)
Pages: and

User being reported: IP range 79.116.206.xxx to 79.116.209.xxx


 * Jet aircraft reverts: note the insertion of 1910 and Coandă
 * 1st revert: 09:31, September 28, 2010
 * 2nd revert: 13:51, September 28, 2010
 * 3rd revert: 14:10, September 28, 2010
 * 4th revert: 07:06, September 29, 2010
 * 5th revert: 18:35, September 29, 2010
 * 6th revert: 20:17, October 7, 2010
 * 7th revert: 06:45, October 8, 2010
 * 8th revert: 08:20, October 8, 2010
 * 9th revert: 08:38, October 9, 2010
 * 10th revert: 13:30, October 9, 2010
 * 11th revert: 21:05, October 9, 2010


 * Henri Coandă reverts: note the insertion of JPG image URLs, and PDF links to www.newfluidtechnology.com and www.go4it.ro:
 * 1st revert: 07:59, September 28, 2010
 * 2nd revert: 13:47, September 28, 2010
 * 3rd revert: 17:08, September 28, 2010
 * 4th revert: 06:59, September 29, 2010
 * 5th revert: 18:25, September 29, 2010
 * 6th revert: 19:02, September 29, 2010
 * 7th revert: 20:52, October 4, 2010
 * 8th revert: 08:20, October 8, 2010
 * 9th revert: 08:01, October 6, 2010
 * 10th revert: 13:01, October 7, 2010
 * 11th revert: 06:30, October 8, 2010
 * 12th revert: 08:18, October 8, 2010
 * 13th revert: 08:36, October 9, 2010
 * 14th revert: 13:31, October 9, 2010
 * 15th revert: 21:08, October 9, 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Special:Contributions/79.116.206.20 –
 * Special:Contributions/79.116.206.78 –
 * Special:Contributions/79.116.206.207 –
 * Special:Contributions/79.116.206.217 –
 * Special:Contributions/79.116.207.185 –
 * Special:Contributions/79.116.207.197 –
 * Special:Contributions/79.116.207.209 –
 * Special:Contributions/79.116.208.68 –
 * Special:Contributions/79.116.208.88 –
 * Special:Contributions/79.116.208.124 –
 * Special:Contributions/79.116.208.158 –
 * Special:Contributions/79.116.208.237 –
 * Special:Contributions/79.116.209.75 –
 * Special:Contributions/79.116.209.87 –
 * Special:Contributions/79.116.209.125 –
 * Special:Contributions/79.116.209.231 –

Talk threads of attempts to resolve dispute on article talk pages:
 * Talk:Jet_aircraft
 * Talk:Jet_aircraft
 * Talk:Henri_Coandă
 * Talk:Henri_Coandă
 * Talk:Henri_Coandă.

Comments:

The Romanian IP range editor wishes to establish Henri Coandă as the inventor of the first jet aircraft in 1910. Some expert sources support this position based on Coandă's 1950s and '60s version of events, and other experts dispute it strongly, with detailed rebuttals based on historical documents. The IP editor puts only the pro-Coandă version into the article, stating it as true, reverting other editors such as Binksternet, BilCat, GraemeLeggett, Brutaldeluxe and Romaniantruths. This is a long-term problem that has been going on since August 2010, in a number of aviation articles such as Aviation history, 1910 in aviation and Coandă-1910, the latter locked as a result. I think a range block is necessary to keep this POV edit warrior from using dynamic IPs as a defense against his edit-warring behavior.

Note that I have requested the same range block at WP:AN/I for civility concerns. Binksternet (talk) 03:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Blocked as well as the 207, 208 and 209 ranges for two months each. EdJohnston (talk) 05:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)