Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive143

Crolladder reported by CharlieEchoTango (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:


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

Dispute on article talk page: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oasis_(band)#Oasis_are_Indie_Rock_not_Alternative_as_it_doesn.27t_mean_anything._Whoever_keeps_changing_it_needs_to_state_their_point_here_and_then_leave_it. talk]

Note that I am not directly involved in this in any way, but some users tried to reach consensus on talk page, and the user reported here continued reverting w/o trying to reach consensus.

-  CET TALK 18:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, as I noted here, Crolladder is making some rather false, inflammatory claims. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Looks like a new user; hasn't reverted since you informed him of this report. I tacked on an extra warning just to be sure. Feel free to update if he continues. -- slakr  \ talk / 21:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do, thanks. CET TALK 21:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * With this latest revert after being warned, I have blocked Crolladder for 24 hours.  E lockid  ( Talk ) 15:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/76.173.247.200 reported by User:V7-sport (Result:12 hours )
Page: List_of_Navy_SEALs

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 edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: I have made every effort to communicate with this individual and persuade them that the WIKI standard is verifiability yet they insist on putting Jesse Ventura on the List of Navy Seals in spite of the fact that I have documented that he was not with reliable sources. It would be great to get this page semi-protected for a period of time. Thank you for your consideration. V7-sport (talk) 07:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport


 * Courcelles 10:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks- V7-sport (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport

User:Nezzdude reported by Eastcote (talk) (Result: 4 days)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 12:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 17:52, 23 October 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 22:14, 23 October 2010  (edit summary: "why promote nationalism? it's dangerous. especially with the neo confederates")
 * 3) 22:39, 23 October 2010  (edit summary: "why promote nationalism? it's dangerous. especially with the neo confederates")
 * 4) 10:18, 24 October 2010  (edit summary: "fascism")


 * Diff of warning: here


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

This is the second user blanking this same section of the article in two days. Possibly the same person. No explanation given for the deletions except "Why promote nationalism?" or "Fascism". Section is well-cited. Multiple editors have reverted the deletions and provided warnings.

—Eastcote (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

User should be blocked for 24 hours, while the first edit might not seem like a revert, the IP before that was removing the same content, so I consider it a revert and a 3rr. Secret account 17:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The same length as . Normally this would be 24 hours. Given however that an inactive account suddenly became active again after a year of inactivity and reinstate the same edits as the IP is a bit too much of a coincidence for me.  E lockid  ( Talk ) 19:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No autoblock given. What a surprise there. (Autoblock doesn't block already blocked IP addresses from what I know).  E lockid  ( Talk ) 19:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

User:RepublicanJacobite in Deadwood (TV series) (Result: protected)
We've got a slight edit war in Deadwood (TV series). Here's the relevant talk section: Talk:Deadwood_(TV_series). Common sense and democracy failed. User:RepublicanJacobite won't let go. We need your help. 109.186.62.61 (talk) 01:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. On the article talk page, I quoted WP:RSN opinions on the use of YouTube as a source, and I was ignored.  "Common sense and democracy," so-called, do not trump policy. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  01:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

User:DinDraithou (Result: both warned)

 * User being reported:

Would someone please have a word with this editor? S/he is mass-removing images from five articles, out of some support for [User:Xanderliptak. I reverted the removals as unnecessary and inappropriate, and have attempted discussion on the user's talkpage, as well as a warning for editwarring. All comments have been summarily removed from the talkpage, followed by further reverts.

This user appears to be under the belief that they somehow have some ownership of these pages do to their ancestry and having 'commissioned' these images. 

This user further seems to be trying to turn this into a battle. The words 'send the enemy scattering' are telling.

This user doesn't appear to understand WP:BRD (despite attempts on both their talkpage and in edit summaries to educate them), nro WP:OWN. If someone uninvolved could have a word, that would be great.

Yes, I reverted as well. Will do no further. → ROUX   ₪  23:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should mention the ulterior motives to your revert. You have never edited the O'Donovan page before, and the only reason you have any interest here is because an image I painted appears on that page, you having some personal agenda against me. You attempt to find and cause issues surrounding me any chance you get, even threatening editors and suggesting to editors that they undo edits so you can better have cause against me, and here. It has almost been a month since our content dispute, let it go.  [talk]   XANDERLIPTAK  23:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Do I have to go through this fucking bullshit--because that is what this nonsense is--again? I honestly cannot be bothered once again to have to correct the blatant misrepresentations of reality that appear to spill forth every time your fingers touch a keyboard. I am sick and tired of this. Learn how to tell the truth. → ROUX   ₪  01:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Please remain CIVIL. I know you have had edit disputes with me in the past, but no need to say someone is a liar when you disagree, I don't accuse you of being a liar when I disagree with you, and there is no reason to swear. You have been blocked for civility issues in the past, please don't make the same mistake. [talk]  XANDERLIPTAK  01:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The basic difference between us, Xanderliptak, is that my statements accurately reflect reality. yours do not. I find it interesting that you claim I follow you.. it was you who followed me here. Begone, shade. → ROUX   ₪  01:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I hate to disappoint you, but I followed you nowhere, I was pointed to this direction. I don't have as much interest as you do with me. [talk]   XANDERLIPTAK  01:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A growing number of editors have an interest, not in you as such, but in your behavior, which is why you're the subject of this: Requests for comment/Xanderliptak. And when I see flippant comments such as "bye bye" when issued warnings, as this DinDraithou did, it raises further suspicions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And based on this gross comment, Xander is in no position to be criticizing anyone else's civility. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * DinDraithou has been getting advice from User:FisherQueen. Din's behavior may lead to a block if it continues, but I see no further reverts after 00:00 on 25 October. I suggest that admins should keep this report open for a while to see if the war has stopped. DinDraithou's removal of some images from articles seems to have been intended as support of Xanderliptak, judging from the discussion at User talk:Xanderliptak. Din seemed unaware that this 'help' constituted edit warring.  An RFC/U has been opened at WP:Requests for comment/Xanderliptak where some of the image issues have been mentioned. EdJohnston (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I advised Din of the hornet's nest he might be getting into, but also advised him of the RFC/U link, all of which he deleted without comment, but we'll see if he comes to Xander's defense. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * &mdash; Added warnings for both roux and DinDraithou, since this is obviously not vandalism and thus should not have been the subject of a revert war. -- slakr \ talk / 08:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and as a side note, in the future, please try to use something vaguely similar to the report template to make investigating these things less painful. -- slakr \ talk / 08:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

User: 99.54.141.126, User: 99.155.147.214, User: 99.155.152.253 and User:99.24.250.219; reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 18:11, October 18, 2010


 * 1st revert: 21:12, October 24, 2010 (as IP 1)
 * 2nd revert: 04:55, October 25, 2010 (as IP 2)
 * 3rd revert: 07:50, October 25, 2010 (as IP 3)
 * 4th revert: 08:08, October 25, 2010 (as IP 4)

IP's 1, 2, and 3 warned around 08:00, October 25, 2010

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Comments: I think the only solution to this edit warring is to semiprotect all climate change articles, at least all those about films. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * a chunk of the articles and blocked some recent ips. Also sent an abuse report to SBC/ATT, because they're obviously all the same user. I don't want to have to deal with this insanity again. In the meantime, if he keeps at it, feel free to report any ip used directly to WP:AIV or WP:ANI, and any page to WP:RFPP. -- slakr  \ talk / 09:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

User:LovelieHeart User:YumeChaser reported by User:Lerdthenerd (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

argument is over the pronouciation of the subjects name

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is one of those cases I hate to act on. There's no doubt that both YumeChaser and LovelieHeart are edit-warring. I would spell it "Saitou" myself, in alignment with LovelieHeart, but YumeChaser is right that our MOS indicates that we should use "Saitō". I can't see any argument for blocking YumeChaser without an equivalent sanction against LovelieHeart.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking over User talk:LovelieHeart makes it clear to me that YumeChaser has been attempting to discuss this, pointing at our MOS and attempting to explain it. LovelieHeart hasn't made any effort to comprehend that I can detect. For people interested in the underlying content dispute, neither party is "wrong": rendering the Japanese long "o" sound in romaji is variable according to the system being used, and "Saito", "Saitoh", "Saitou", and "Saitō" can all be used. Generally, it's more important to be consistent as to which system is being used than which particular system is being used.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? I DID compromise with Yume. I left in parts of the format she edited. The only thing I did NOT budge on was the fact that his name is spelled SAITOU in English because it's not right. Unless otherwise specified, SAITOU is the native spelling (though it can be spelled SAITOH, SAITO, SAITOO, etc in English). Yume used inappropriate language on my page. If Yume would have just left the Hiro page alone long enough for me to finish it, there would have been no "war." I save my work on Wiki as I go so I don't lose it and everytime I go back to add more to it, Yume would edit it and I would get an "edit conflict" notice and have to go back and REDO everything I'd just wrote then so I could have it in the original style to know how to add to it, hence the numerous edits. I'm trying to update the page, which has sat idle for months, and everytime I go to fix something, Yume was too busy messing up my formatting and facts before I could properly source them and finish it. So frankly, if she had just given me a few hours free, the page would have been completed with no problem. And the ironic thing is, now I can't go back and finish the page with information because I'm too afraid I'll get suspended for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LovelieHeart (talk • contribs) 20:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Result - Both parties warned. Any continuation of this edit war may lead to blocks, regardless of what WP:MOS says. (MOS is guidance but it is not a policy). Use the talk page to try to get support from other editors. The person who gives you a 3RR warning is under no obligation to tell you about the filing of a report; you're expected to do what is necessary regardless. If the issues you are disputing are truly important, you'll be able to find other editors who agree. EdJohnston (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I find it weird that Lerdthenerd warned both of to stop edit warring but didn't even bother to notify either of us that they already filed a report. Anyway, I stopped editing the article when Lerdthenerd requested us too. It wasn't smart to edit war but nothing I can do about it now. 夢  追人  YumeChaser 20:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Ryasweeney reported by User:Xeworlebi (Result:Warned )
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 18:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 15:39, 24 October 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 23:16, 24 October 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 02:51, 25 October 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 11:50, 25 October 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 13:46, 25 October 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 6) 18:34, 25 October 2010  (edit summary: "")


 * Diff of warning: here


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

Comments: Source given states 150 minutes, user keeps changing it to 147 without a reason.  X  eworlebi (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

He stopped revert warring after you warned him, recommend no block Secret account 21:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As Secret said, no violation after warning. Looie496 (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Faustian reported by User:Jacurek (Result:Page protected )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: revert of another edit of different editor:

Above is a continuation of an edit war conducted earlier:    

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:        

Comments:

The user has introduced very exceptional claim to the article based on one questionable publication in Ukrainian language. User failed to provide additional sources as per policy: "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". Requests from various user for more sources are often met with personal attacks (see talk page) and edit war.--Jacurek (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This is part of a continuing edit war in which another user was just blocked a few days ago, and it's multiple users revert warring each other I recommend that the page be protected. Secret account 21:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The previously blocked user has not been edit warring since his unblock request has been granted and he is now actively participating in the discussion on the talk page . Protection of the page may be not necessary ones reported above user is blocked or warned.--Jacurek (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I see five different users reverting in the past week two from one side and three from another side (one of whom got blocked), that doesn't indicate that the revert warring will stop. Blocking one editor won't help if the other editor is there to keep on revert warring. That's why it should be protected. Secret account 22:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * All other editors made single reverts. Reported above user reverted various editors multiple times ignoring pleads for additional sources to back up exceptional information that is being introduced by him. If the reviewing administrator finds protection of the page helpful, please apply it by all means. However, the behaviour of the reported edit warring user should be looked at also and addressed appropriately.--Jacurek (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * 3 days. Looie496 (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the decision of only protecting the page has “awarded” edit warring user reported above with his version of the events since it was him who was reverting others and was last to make edits. Please warn the user on his talk page to avoid future edit warring. Your advice of seeking dispute resolution will be followed. Thanks for that.--Jacurek (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Faustian: I have already stated that I would not revert again until after this is resolved elswhere (diff here:), if others decide to continue to remove the sourced information. I added information that was referenced (diff: ). This info was removed with the phrase "removed ridiculous accusation." I took this case to RFC with no response from nuetral parties. I asked an admin to intervene: (here:). When the source itself was taken to the reliable sources noticeboard, both noninvolved comentators concluded that it was a reliable source:. "In reply to Faustian from above, if the material isn't contained in the English language Marples, then there is no problem with sourcing it from the equally scholarly and reliable Patrylyak. Fifelfoo (talk) 16:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)" Looking at the edit history, we have three editors seeking to remove this statement based on a reliable source, four trying to keep it. Looking at those three trying to remove the sourced statement, two - including the one bringing this to ANI (see here for a taste: ) - have extensive histories of ethnic edit-warring and this seems to be an example of an ethnic edit war; trying to keep info that they deem bad of Poles, apparently, off wikipedia. I am trying to be reasonable with them: but they do not seem to be interested and I would prefer not to simply censor the information. It looks like a minority is trying to censor information. Any solution proposed by you guys would be welcome by me.Faustian (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * With respect to the claims against me - I will also note that there is a 2 day gap between the 1st and 2nd reverts - while I waited for opinions from the reliable sources noticeboard and saw that there was no consensus building on keeping the information off - it was just those three vetoing it. The third revert (that is to say, putting referenced information back into the article that had been removed) was after yet another person on the reliable sources noticeboard supported the reliability of the source. The "fourth revert" attributed to me at the top of this section involved me removing an image placed into the article twice (I removed a duplicate) and me moving a phrase (not removing it) to another, more appropriate, place in the article (here is the diff showing how I moved it -  - it was obviously not a revert); the so-called fourth revert had nothing to do with the first three and involved totally different content in the article. His report of me is frivolous and probably tactical. Faustian (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

User:67.176.220.219 reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: Blocked 48 Hours)
Page:

User being reported:


 * Ist edit: 20:46, October 24, 2010, removes 10 sections, including a section called Funding, and criticism sourced to ABC News.


 * Ist revert: 22:20, October 24, 2010, removes the Funding section, and criticism sourced to ABC News.


 * 2nd revert: 00:29, October 25, 2010, removes criticism sourced to ABC News.


 * 3rd revert: 20:33, October 25, 2010, removes the Funding section, and criticism sourced to ABC News.


 * 4th revert: 21:02, October 25, 2010, removes the Funding section, and criticism sourced to ABC News.

An anon IP has arrived at Fred Singer, one of the climate-change-skepticism BLPs, and is removing criticism from it. This is a BLP that has been written carefully to make sure it's BLP-compliant, and the material the anon is removing is well-sourced. I left a note for him on article talk at 20:37 Oct 25 asking him to explain his concerns, and at 20:42 on his talk page explaining about 3RR,  but he continued to revert. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 21:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments

I just rollbacked his revert, I recommend a block or the page at least semi as removing sections is considered vandalism. Secret account 21:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Looie496 (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

User:SexyKick reported by User:DCEvoCE (Result: Declined/warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1) 19:22, 21 October 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 392077513 by DCEvoCE (talk) images show what add ons are capable of")
 * 2) 04:07, 26 October 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 392924807 by DCEvoCE (talk) You aren't an admin, and you are disruptive here.")
 * 3) 04:14, 26 October 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 392929108 by DCEvoCE (talk) It was here because of multiple NFC Logos, read the improper use section")


 * Diff of warning: here

The original report is collapsed, because it made my eyes hurt and my brain bleed. Haven't edited the diffs, checking now. -- slakr \ talk / 07:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

User:SexyKick

Hello there,

I would like to report User:SexyKick for initiating edit wars by continuously reverting valid edits made to the Mega Drive article, removing tags set by admins, and re-inserting non-free content.

My attempt to contact this person via his/her talk page (several times) remained fruitless. He kept reverting edits (even those by admins, removing the non-free & cleanup tag, repeatedly: August 10th A, August 10th B, August 8th, and did not stop until tonite).

Prior to that, this person contacted me accusing me of vandalism when I tried to reword a few sentences of a section of the article ("Console Wars") with the goal to eventually clean the entire article of bias, speculation and weasel words to focus on facts alone.

Here's the edit in question. I have observed that since I made that edit (made June 28th!), practically every single edit made to the article was reverted by this person.

I hope you can help. I really don't know what to do with this guy. DCEvoCE (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

From previous "discussions":

A word by J Milburn (the admin who tagged the article for non-free content) as can be read on the article's talk page:

A warning handed out by admin KieferSkunk on SexyKick's talk page a few days ago:

DCEvoCE (talk) 05:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * DCE is a bold editor, and while I respect that, and find nothing wrong with it, he does not always act with consensus, nor wait for it to take form. JMilburn placed the NFC tag on the article because too many NFC logos were being used (3 NFC logos.) Currently one NFC logo is being used, which is what JMilburn said we were limited to. DCE constantly removes sourced statements from the article, and I add them back in. I did think it was vandalism at first, but his consistency clearly shows he means well by removing information, and that I must have been mistaken. I don't know what to do other than add the removed sourced statements back in however. In reference to the cleanup tag, the other editors and I addressed the issues which DCE pointed out that were in need of cleanup, and when I removed the tag, he re-added it and was angry with me.-- Sexy Kick  04:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Consensus was to remove the screenshots. The tag was for non-free content, not some logo. I am angry with you because it is impossible to edit the article because you keep reverting every single edit. - And no, your lies won't help you out of this this time. DCEvoCE (talk) 05:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not a liar. The reason the NFC tag was there, was because of the three logos, and was talked about extensively in the articles talk pages. You removed those screenshots before consensus, and more people have weighed in since you removed them.
 * I'm sorry you have an issue with me.-- Sexy Kick  05:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * {| border="0" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0" align="center" width="90%" style="background-color: #EEEEEE;"


 * Will the template on the Sonic CD image and Mega Drive article be removed for now then?--SexyKick 14:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Will the template on the Sonic CD image and Mega Drive article be removed for now then?--SexyKick 14:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to remove it. J Milburn (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * }


 * The issue then moved on a couple weeks later to the 3 logos. Here's the edit in question. -- Sexy Kick  05:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I should also add for everyone's knowledge that I did add the Sonic The Hedgehog cover art into the article, as well as a picture of the Mega Drive box art. J Milburn removed both of these from the article, and helped me to realize that they were not proper uses of NFC. Both of the things shown by the pictures could easily have been written about, or already were.
 * I also deny reverting "every single" edit of DCE's, he's added the picture of the High Definition Graphics Genesis (currently under consideration for removal by another user, as questionable notability) and he also added the screen shot of Sonic 1, I did not revert either. Anytime DCE has something helpful to add I do not revert, however most of his contributions consist of removing sources, sourced statements, changing statements that already have sources, removing pictures, etc. I'm sure it seems frustrating to him, but when I try explaining myself to him, he says I "spam" his talk page, and he never accepts what I have to say about things anyway. I know he thinks he's helping in some way, but no matter how nice I am to him, he's always angry.-- Sexy Kick  07:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * &mdash; As of this report it doesn't look like there's an actual violation of the three revert rule. Granted, three reverts isn't a privilege, and there's still some sort of minor edit warring going on, but it's borderline to the point that if it continues, 3RR or not, it will definitely be an edit war. What concerns me the most is this new account magically appearing, which is almost certainly a sock or meatpuppet. Still, even though that's shady, the puppet's revert wouldn't put the puppetmaster over the revert limit, but using socks in an edit war, alone, puts you on the losing side due to the inherently abusive attempt to game the system.  If any of you continue to use socks or edit while signed out in an attempt to try to "win," you will likely be blocked twice as long as the person with whom you're warring.  Consider this the last warning for all parties involved: take it to the articles talk page -- slakr  \ talk / 07:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Shimman reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result:no violation )
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 09:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


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

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


 * 1) 15:39, 24 October 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "updated the default picture to the current model (2011) picture")
 * 2) 08:22, 26 October 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 392678777 by OSX (talk) reverted back to the better quality picture")
 * 3) 08:29, 26 October 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 392954678 by Bidgee (talk) 4th gen picture looks sharper with noticeably less post-processing artifacts than 2002 euro picture")
 * 4) 09:01, 26 October 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "5th gen picture would be better IMHO, but there are people who cannot relate 5th gen yet, so 4th gen with better quality than 2nd gen euro model picture which i don't think too many can relate")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Bidgee (talk) 09:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems that both of you have expressed your reasoning for your reverts quite differently. I now know that Shimman wants a quality picture but Bidgee is reverting due to WP:CARPIX. Is protection in order? Minima  c  ( talk ) 11:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no need for me to repeat on what WP:CARPIX states, I said in the edit summary to take it to the talk page and warned the editor (in regards to 3RR) but the editor just breached the 3RR by changing the image again. Protection is pointless when it is one editor in the wrong. Bidgee (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You've both made three reverts today. Discuss this out, or I'm going to start issuing blocks.  Neither of you is in the clear here, you are both edit warring, that some Wikiproject style guide may support one of you is no justification whatsoever for engaging in this edit war. Courcelles 14:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact I did three but Shimman has breached the 3RR. Your threat is unjustified since two editors (OSX and myself) support the current image [and as does the consensus on the article's talk page from the past] and there is no need to insult me (especially with the edit summary of Time to quit, as I've not pasted the 3RR and could be seen as a comment to quit Wikipedia). It is no wonder why long time editors are getting sick of Admin's acting like you have done here. Bidgee (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, he has not broken the 3RR, as your own timestamp shows- the first edit you list is ~48 hours old. 3RR requires more than three reverts within a 24 hour period.  However, you are both edit warring, which is block-worthy even in absence of a 3RR violation.  I take a particularly dim view of people who revert 3 times and then run here to ANEW to report the other party- your third revert was at 0953, and this report was filed at 0957.  If I'm going to block anyone for this, I'm going to block both of you.  You need to take a very careful read of what constitutes edit warring and what does not- talk page consensus, or even WikiProject consensus is not in any way an exemption to the policy against edit warring. Yes, it is time to quit.  Time to disengage and walk away from this dispute.  Until someone makes another revert, this one is . Courcelles 15:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

User:MR90 reported by User:Xeworlebi (Result:Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:
 * Time reported: 17:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
 * 1) 19:34, 25 October 2010  (edit summary: "Removed section does not identify the person for their public notability.  More appropriate that it be placed in separate section of "Life and Education."")
 * 2) 02:41, 26 October 2010  (edit summary: "Biographical information removed because two facts which occurred eleven years apart are linked in same sentence.  This does not constitute a biography.  It is senseless.")
 * 3) 13:11, 26 October 2010  (edit summary: "to construct a biography of a living person off of one interview is misleading and irresponsible.  see rules on BLP.   i shortened the biography to facts verified in sources.    and, fixed grammar.")
 * 4) 14:27, 26 October 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 393000236 by Scjessey (talk)")
 * 5) 15:10, 26 October 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 393000821 by Scjessey (talk)  Vandalism.  Not significant information.  Poor sourcing. db-a7, {{db-person}.  {{db-")
 * 6) 15:22, 26 October 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 393008082 by Scjessey (talk)  WP:VAN, WP:NPF, WP:BLP1E, db-a7, {{db-person}. {{db-)")
 * 7) 16:06, 26 October 2010  (edit summary: "WP:VAN, WP:NPF, WP:BLP1E, {{Tl|db-a7}}, {{db-person}.   Non-professional information obtained from web interview not a source.  Notable for one-event only.  Historical info inappropriate.")


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

Comments: WP:SPA user who removes sourced information which he calls unencyclopedic and inaccurate. Some edits partly contained correct edits, bit all removed the same sourced information of her graduation. Edits from the last 24 hours, went on before that.  {{sub|X}}  eworlebi {{sup|(talk)}} 17:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Page protected by SlimVirgin Secret {{sup|account}} 20:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

User:DDF19483 reported by User:Attilios (Result: Protected)
Page:

This user (probably an Italian one from Teramo, as he edits only this article), is continuously reverting the article to this version, reverting all modifications made between this version and his first reverts.


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

I tried to warn him to stop revert the article to his rather crude version, but he did not reply and continued in his reverting actions. --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Both of you are at 3R, so this pretty much needs to stop, the next revert will draw a block. Courcelles 09:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How can we be both at 3RR? My reverts are just the deletion of his ones! --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 10:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And his are just the deletion of yours. See how this goes both ways? - CET  TALK  10:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please notice that my version is a large-effort wikification of his previous version, to which he is endlessly reverting to. Give just a glance to the two version, and notice there's no comparison as for Wikipedicity. He is also reintroducing errors which have corrected in the meantime. Check this correction by another user, which is already implemented in my version. Notice also that the other user is now using different IPs to make his reverts. Let me know. --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 10:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello, this user keeps on reverting the article to his very personal version deleting the long work of many. He constantly comes to my talk page insulting me in Italian. I'm tired of telling him wikipedia is cooperation and community. Please get things fixed asap. There is no doubt he has issues.

DDF19483 (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Protected two weeks. The revert war continued after Courcelles' warning. If the editors will begin a good-faith discussion on the article talk page, that could be enough reason to lift the protection. It seems that this war has been going on since May. Editors are expected to be able to use the steps of WP:Dispute resolution, such as WP:3O. EdJohnston (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * as you could see from talk, I started with a polite comment on his talk page, which he deleted. I tried again with another, he again deleted it. So (also judging from the very poor quality of his article, including some major error i basic English) I considered him a wikijerk, and went on into deleting it. Further, his recent accuse in my talk page that I've numerous edit wars is totally false. I am not involved into an edit war since ages. You can easily see that all debates involving pages I am editing were solved nearly immediataly, with no edit war or 3RR violations at all. Let me know and good work. --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 12:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

User:208.54.86.35/User:69.26.208.78 reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness (Result: Semiprotected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

The two IPs above are obviously controlled by the same user, both go back to the exact same location, besides edit warring on Palestinian freedom of movement above, the user who controls these two IPs have been edit warring at Israeli salad: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Purely for the record; I attempted to address this w/ a SPI. NickCT (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected due to probable sockpuppetry. Two IPs from Dallas show up out of nowhere to edit the same article. They are presumably the same person. WP:SOCK explains why this is a bad idea. EdJohnston (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

IP et al. reported by User:John J. Bulten (Result: Editors warned; article semiprotected)
Page:

User being reported: IP et al.

Previous version reverted to: Note that I initiated the debolding of the then-roman text in second graf first sentence "As of" per WP:MOSBOLD. Most edits by IP range familiar to NickOrnstein.


 * 1st revert: by 218.109.121.101
 * 2nd revert: by 218.109.120.239
 * 3rd revert: by Dhanson317
 * 4th revert: by 218.109.117.5
 * 5th revert: by DerbyCountyinNZ
 * 6th revert: by Brendanology
 * 7th revert: by Ryoung122
 * 8th revert: by Brendanology
 * 9th revert: by Brendanology
 * 10th revert: by 218.109.115.156
 * 11th revert: by 218.109.116.194
 * 12th revert: by 218.109.115.102
 * 13th revert: by Brendanology

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: last in long thread

Comments: Both sides are engaged in long-time edit war (without true 3RR violations), but one side is citing what they see as an unambiguous WP:MOSBOLD rule, while the other is citing "common-sense exception", meaning local article tradition. In favor of bold are listed above (5 counting IPs as 1); in favor of roman or italic are myself, Itsmejudith, Griswaldo (the other side of the reverts, naturally); also on talk, Tcncv, Canada Jack, Frank (6). Advice requested. JJB 16:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Semiprotected, due to the reverting of the article by anonymous editors who don't participate on the talk page. The guy from the 218.* range should register an account, or used a fixed IP, if he plans to continue reverting a disputed article. All editors are advised that WP:MOS is only a guideline. The continued removal or addition of bolding, before a consensus is reached on the talk page, could lead to blocks. Consider an WP:RFC or the other possible steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ed, didn't think of semiprotection, good warning shot. JJB 16:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: It should be noted that JJBulten began this self-proclaimed "bolding war" and that he CANVASSED to recruit Itsmejudith and Grismaldo as part of a WP:POINT (another violation) to demonstrate that editors of articles on supercentenarians tend to "work together." Duh. Of course they do. But aside from the larger issues, I think the discussion needs to separate out "bolding in text" versus "bolding in tables." The rules or guidelines for WP:MOSBOLD refer to article text in narrative format, not bolding in a table.

Aside from this, I see Brendanology's bolding being applied in a logical manner, such as "bolding" the "as of" date which changes every day. It's something that needs constant visual attention. As for italics, they often give the idea of special meaning or emphasis per what the sentence is trying to say. In this case, an exception should be considered because the "bolding" being employed is being used NOT to bring notice to the sentence itself, but to the date. In other words, the "article text" is little more than an explanation of what the information in the tables mean. Since the purpose of use is different, a different treatment than "italics" should considered.

Finally, I'm NOT going to employ JJBulten's stack-the-deck political machination to make it appear that one position or another has overwhelming/widespread support. The fact that the "bolding" on these tables and lists stayed the way they did for over a year, maybe two, speaks to the implicit consensus of the many editors who read them. A search of the talk page finds others in support. They can comment here if they so choose, no need for me to "name names."

The bottom line is that practical exceptions to Wikipedia "guidelines" regarding "style" should be employed, and that the edit history of JJBulten starting and causing trouble (not surprising, considering he is a right-wing conservative blogger, so he has perfected the art of online aggression off-wiki) should lead a neutral third-party person to consider what his motivations are, and more so whether his "changes" make the article worse, which I think they do. Ryoung 122 17:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Robert, your characterization of my user-page disclosure and other characterizations are bordering on personal attack. The bolding of today's date is contrary to WP:RECENTISM and (indirectly) WP:DATED, and WP:CCC also applies. Your failure to interact at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-01-04/Longevity myths and defend the positions on which we agree is not helping. To build consensus about these topics, including the use of bolding and related styling in several other longevity articles, it is necessary for you to interact with the mediation you agreed to. I am unwatching this page. JJB 18:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree with Ryoung122 that JJB's "changes" make the article worse. I have already brought up WP:IAR to him, which he chose to ignore completely.

And JJB, your citation of the edit warring notice on my userpage is inappropriate. There was no such "edit warring" situation at the time you put up this notice, which makes it completely improper for you to cite it as one of the actions you have taken. Brendan (TalK|ContriB) 03:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Chartinael reported by User:Kaddoo (Result: warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Comment:--Kaddoo (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:


 * Both above and . Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, was about to report the Lagoo Sab.--Kaddoo (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to cut in late, but I most obviously disagree about the warning. Lagoo reverted my well sourced clean up edits. The issue has already been taken to the discussion page. Relevant edits:
 * October 20th ethnologue references ethnic population of about 50 mio to actual speaker population as referenced on ucla language project, encyclopaedia iranica and whatever the third source is.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pashto_language&action=historysubmit&diff=391805854&oldid=391040132
 * October 26th, changed pashtun speakers again to ethnicity as source states (btw source says "possibly"), added references for the history as official language in Afghanistan all academically referenced
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pashto_language&action=historysubmit&diff=392961092&oldid=392882621
 * October 28th, Lagoo takes out referenced speaker numbers and replaces with ethnic population numbers. Some wording and formation changes. Nothing major, but takes out official language section with references and replaces with lengthy direct quote from ucla language project about national language.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pashto_language&action=historysubmit&diff=393363858&oldid=392961092
 * I then leave his highballing population numbers but add lower numbers as well. I readd the part about the official language and do some cleaning up in the infobox as in add language tree, take out unreferenced superlative about karachi and other encylopadic stuff like taking back the citation needed stuff, lagoo took out.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pashto_language&action=historysubmit&diff=393385693&oldid=393363858
 * Then follow lagoo reverts:1, 2, 3
 * Lagoo cherry picks sources which is an utter no-go. There is an academic paper referencing speaker population of about 40 million. I have no issues with the numbers, but they must be properly referenced. Academic print wins out on websources.
 * I am thus claiming cause and exemption. Chartinael (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:3RR has no exception for "my edits are well sourced". This isn't a matter of discussion. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopaedic project however, to take out sourced material is unencyclopaedic at best, to replace with material not suportted by the sources violates a core policy as Verifiability as one of those core policies, this is sufficient cause. If a source does not support what the article states, such statement is to be removed. WP:BOP Reverting to enforce core policies is not to be considered edit warring. Chartinael (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've read over the diffs, and your reverts were a content dispute, not of vandalism. There is no excuse for edit warring. If you disagree, please seek out dispute resolution. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

User:173.220.184.2 reported by User:Supertouch (Result:24h block )
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: [link]

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

Comments:


 * Editor appears to be using IP User:96.242.217.91 as well, as a "good hand" account. Editor has been told that one reference is not sufficient to support the claims being made, and has acknowledged as such with the good hand account,  yet persists in inserting the unsupported statement with the bad hand account. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Looie496 (talk) 22:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Rarevogel / User:84.83.145.241 reported by User:Jayjg (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported: /

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Note: This is a notice of edit-warring, not 3RR violation., who often simply edits as his IP, , has been removing various pictures from the infobox on Berber people and inserting others he prefers since September 21. The pictures themselves are not particularly appropriate for the infobox, and most of the images are already found elsewhere in the article, where the subjects are described. Nevertheless, he simply shows up two or three times a week, reverts, then disappears - so far he has reverted 3 different editors. He insists that the pictures he is removing are of "unknowns", despite the fact that all of them have English Wikipedia articles. He refuses to come to the Talk: page discussion, although he has been asked to do so many times in edit summaries and on the article talk page itself. His User talk: page as an IP is a litany of warnings, and he was blocked for his disruptive editing on a different article just yesterday: see User talk:84.83.145.241. Jayjg (talk) 02:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 24 hours to Rarevogel. The IP is clearly him but is already blocked, so nothing to be done there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

User:O Fenian reported by 92.229.22.236 (Result: Semiprotected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Before the contribution in question


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

The contribution in question is the addition of "Cameroon" into the list of countries that use the article's item.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I don't know how that is done.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk page, several of my entries have been deleted, one named "???" is still there..for now.

Comments:

The contribution in question is the addition of "Cameroon" into the list of countries that use the article's item. Proof for that are various pictures from a military parade in Cameroon where the item in question can be seen clearly. Since it is just logical that not every small sale is being reported on in the media, finding written sources is next to impossible. Pictures are proof enough that it is there as the members of the Cameroon Armed Forces can be clearly identified. I repeat: The source are the pictures itself, not the words or opinions posted by someone on the site where the pictures are taken from. Even after additional sources, which prove that a contract on the sale of weaponry to the country in question existed, have been added, the User still reverts the article saying that the sources don't specifically mention the weapon in question. They however do not mention any details on what specifically is being sold at all, which, as I already wrote, is common, as not everything small is reported in the media. Add to that that the other countries listed don't have any sources at all. And, except for two countries which have a source, the only sources that the item in question is being used are pictures, as well. So this restriction on my contribution doesn't make sense at all. I tried to explain the logic several times, but it seems that the User in question has some sort of bias or reason why he doesn't want my contribution to be there at all. 92.229.22.236 (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please provide diffs of the questionable edits, not oldid's of pages. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Here are the diffs, as generated by the 3rr.php tool. They appear to be the same ones that the submitter intended. I'll let some other admin close this. —EdJohnston (talk) 04:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) 17:59, 26 October 2010  (edit summary: "Revert. Forum posts are not reliable sources")
 * 2) 19:51, 27 October 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 393244418 by 92.230.221.54 (talk)")
 * 3) 18:46, 28 October 2010  (edit summary: "Revert. See Verifiability, forum posts are not reliable sources")
 * 4) 00:37, 29 October 2010  (edit summary: "Revert. Forum posts are not reliable sources, other sources not mention the Zastava M21")
 * Article is already semiprotected due to the edit war, which seems to have stopped it. Don't see much need to block anyone, given that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Thomttran reported by User:Guoguo12 (Result: already blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

No comments. Guoguo12 --Talk--  19:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

User:178.140.84.25 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 20:19, October 29, 2010


 * 1st revert: 20:27, October 29, 2010
 * 2nd revert: 22:01, October 29, 2010
 * 3rd revert: 22:12, October 29, 2010
 * 4th revert: 02:25, October 30, 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 01:33, October 30, 2010

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Sorry, I haven't done that. However, it's a Template, which should generally remain stable, in the absence of specific reasons to change.

Comments:

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Arthur Rubin tries to use this page to 'win' the content dispute without making any attempts at discussion. It seems that he participates in this revert-war just for fun because his earlier commit at this page included the link to tessarines which he is now attemping to remove: . Probably he just reverts any changes because they are made from an anonymous account because I forgot to login under my usual account this time.--178.140.84.25 (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring by Arthur Rubin: --178.140.84.25 (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:

I added a comment on the article's discussion page, attempting to dicuss the issue:, but Arthur Rubin still has to reply. It should be noted that if I was a new user, unexplained and unmotivated silent reverts by Arthur Rubin would certainly disrupt my image of Wikipedia, as a new user probably would not know that such issues are better discussed on a talk page.--178.140.84.25 (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The IP is at about 6 reverts against two editors, which is not acceptable. I hope nevertheless that Arthur Rubin will see fit to respond to the message on the talk page. Looie496 (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Baptism and Immersion baptism reported by User:Esoglou (Result: )

 * Page:
 * Page:

I think the warning already given against edit warring on these two article should be put into effect. Esoglou (talk) 07:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Please bear in mind that admins who look at reports here are probably not intimately familiar with the background. Looking at the history, I presume you are talking about, and I can see that there was a 3RR violation on Oct 27.  If the editor is continuing to revert against consensus it may well constitute edit warring, but I cannot tell merely by looking at the diffs whether the edits are reverts or whether there is consensus.  You'll have to give a bit more evidence, I'm afraid. Looie496 (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

reported by User:LilHelpa (Result: resolved)
Page:

Comment: Yipes. Just somebody take a look, huh? I was going to just hard revert this to something that didn't suck, but was afraid these two would just go on and on. I'm not real patient with the WP "paperwork". You're my hero. Really. Thanks. --LilHelpa (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Reverted to last clean version, warned user and I'll keep an eye on this. Since it's a bit stale there's no need for blocks or protections at the moment. Also, in the future please report this kind of incidents to WP:ANI. T. Canens (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Noted. Thanks again. LilHelpa (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Rjensen reported by User:Hoppingalong (Result: No action)
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: In an ES, another ed asked Rjensen to explain his source and text removals at the article talk. 

Comments:

The started after I challenged this unsourced statement: "Every shopping mall in the United States sells the same Chinese-made products". Another editor removed it, and Rjensen reinserted it noting that is is "common knowledge". Hoppingalong (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The paragraph in question is a mess of unsourced WP:OR. Hoppingalong and I were trying to qualify some of the bold, poorly sourced, and potentially POV assertions made by Rjensen. Uncle Dick (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm very reluctant to block an editor who was been editing since 2005 with a clean block record and is clearly making some effort to cooperate. I have left a talk page message confirming the 3RR violation and asking Rjensen not to force the issue. I would like to leave it here for the moment in the hope that the problem does not continue. Looie496 (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But Rjensen made edits after I warned him. And only after I reported him did he take it to talk. Regardless, he (or soeebody) should at the very least self-revert to avoid the block required by the rule. Hoppingalong (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * My apologies for getting involved in an edit war, which has now happily moved to the discussion page. I made 3 reverts (not 4) of Hoppingalong's citation to a Medicare study. Rjensen (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you denying you violated 3RR? An admin has already confirmed it. You only reverted the Medicare study three times, true, but that wasn't the only text you reverted. A "reversion" isn't only a reversion of the same material, it can "involv(e) the same or different material" according to WP:3RR. Even now, given ample opportunity, Rjensen refuses to self-revert. It seems counterproductive to reward (via allowing the contested version to stand) an editor who has violated 3RR while punishing other editors (by effectively disallowing edits) who refuse to violate the rule. I don't see why in this case one would depart from the usual rule of blocking for 24 hours. Hoppingalong (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Rjensen, the 3RR rule forbids reverting more than 3 times in 24 hours in a single article, regardless of whether the reverts are all on the same issue. As I said, I am reluctant to block anybody when I believe that all parties here are acting in good faith.  To equalize things I have myself reverted Rjensen's last edit on the article.  If y'all can come to an agreement on the talk page, feel free to put the article into the agreed-upon form. Looie496 (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not think this calls for a block either since several editors were edit-warring. (Uncle Dick: "I'm on the cusp of a 3RR violation here".  Hoppingalong:  "I am near 3RR, too....")  Everyone is now talking and I suggest that if they are unable to find agreement among themselves to use noticeboards and RfCs to get the input of additional editors.  TFD (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - No action. It appears that a compromise was reached. EdJohnston (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Stratioti reported by User:Monstrelet (Result: )
Page:

The development of this page is obstructed by edit warring based on ethnic origins of stratioti. This discourages editors interested in the operational history from improving the article. I have asked at MILHIST and been recommended to seek an adminstrative view Monstrelet (talk) 08:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

User:cygnis insignis reported by User:Yousou (Result: Protected 1 week )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Yousou (report) 16:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is clearly notable. This is a semi-automated and tendentious approach by someone interfering with a perfectly acceptable contribution. cygnis insignis 16:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The 'semi-automated' approach is WP:TW. Also Note that he refuses to use the hangon template. Yousou (report) 16:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I must be getting soft, I could have blocked both editors. I removed the speedy tag and protected for a week. Dougweller (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Ekwos reported by User:chaos5023 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Ekwos has begun edit warring to remove, wholesale, the "In popular culture" section from Cthulhu. Once he threatened me with a report for reverting him, and continued to edit war after I opened discussion and he responded in it, I supposed it was time to just come here. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

See also announcement of intention to continue edit warring posted while I was working on this report. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The same behavior is now in evidence at Shoggoth:


 * Sigh. Ekwos also blanks his talk page. Still, I think the best way forward is to find secondary sources and add. Frustrating though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Ekwos appears to have abandoned edit warring as his approach to these articles in favor of criteria-based trimming, so I would like to withdraw this report, if that's how it's done. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 07:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. If there are further problems, resubmit. Better to not delete this report from the page since another admin already responded. Also, it helps to keep a history. EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Loremaster reported by User:Nuujinn (Result:72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Please advise if I'm out of line, but I think this is pretty straightforward. Loremaster appears to not understand the policy, see this, perhaps someone can clarify it to him (or perhaps to me)). Thanks, --Nuujinn (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Blatant edit-warring: "Let's resolve on the talk page" accompanied by reversions on sight. Looking at the user's block log, he or she is well aware of the relevant policies. I would have gone for longer than 72 hours but it is some time since the last block. Mkativerata (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Raider Duck reported by User:67.170.110.1 (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shaun_Alexander&oldid=394121978

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


 * 1st revert: [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shaun_Alexander&oldid=393993591
 * 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:

Raider Duck is continuously forcing an inaccurate edit on the article of Shaun Alexander. He is saying he is a FORMER player, but Alexander has never retired and has said he still wants to play in the NFL and is actively seeking a position with a team.

Can you please stop him from telling people his opinion is the only one, changing it to his preferred content and threatening users with claims of "vandalism"? That has got to be some kind of abuse of the rules, doesn't it?

PLEASE do something about this. He's just unrelenting in his hostility. 67.170.110.1 (talk) 06:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've warned the reporter about this and stated that anyone can use the article's talk page. This IP is getting pretty close to violating 3RR, but I don't think any other action is needed yet. Minima  c  ( talk ) 06:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Result - Protected two weeks. It is annoying that the IP is hopping from one address to another, but I do not perceive that Raider Duck has obtained any clear consensus on the talk page. Consider an RFC, make a request at a WikiProject, or try other steps of WP:Dispute resolution. If anyone believes the IP is a sock, consider making a report at WP:SPI. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Number 57 reported by Shuki (talk) (Result: 12 hour block)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 13:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to:

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


 * 1) 10:27, 31 October 2010  (edit summary: "Fix link to original ref") Not merely fixed, but also 1st revert.
 * 2) 11:51, 31 October 2010  (edit summary: ""More neutral"? Restore long-term description")
 * 3) 17:01, 31 October 2010  (edit summary: "Per last reversion & the fact that last time this was an issue, another editor also reverted to this version")
 * 4) 10:48,  1 November 2010  (edit summary: "rv standard attempt to shift political spectrum to the right")

Ignored attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The dispute is if this political party can be described as right-wing party or a far-right party. Reliable sources are available using both descriptions, even within the same local newspapers. In this edit, I attempted to introduce a RS sourced compromise using both descriptions in this edit, but the editor, an admin no less, merely reverted to meet his POV. There had been inconclusive discussion last year in which the editor uses WP:SYNTH to come to the conclusion that the party can ONLY be decribed as far-right and refuses to include other information. Even with AGF, the editor, has conveniently waited 24hours + 20minutes to make the fourth revert without bothering to discuss. The editor, an avid political contributor, assumes he is the end-all expert in the area and has a history of edit warring, see here. —Shuki (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I won't bother with a detailed reponse to the above, but I suggest anyone wanting to take action has a brief look at the edit and block history of Shuki and myself and decide which one is trying to introduce bias to the article. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  14:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It's pathetic that you are attacking my credibility rather than deal with the subject at hand. Once again, you completely evade justifying your, admittedly uncharacteristic, yet poor holier than thou behaviour. --Shuki (talk) 15:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Edit warring on a sensitive political subject is unacceptable, and justifying it by disparaging the other party doesn't make things any better. I've blocked Number 57 for 12 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, I've restricted Shuki to 1RR until the end of December for the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles interpreted broadly. PhilKnight (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Arbor832466 reported by User:Theeagleman (Result: Both blocked)
Chris Gibson

Arbor832466:

Previous version reverted to:


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

3RR warning:

I have made an attempt to discuss this, the other editor started the discussion, but then continued to edit I asked that we wait on consensus but they would not wait see:



This has been a continued issue with the user, they have previously simply blanked this section previously rather then making any serious effort to improve it. I also had previously tried to engage them, but they simply did not engage see  Theeagleman (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you,

Theeagleman (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Courcelles 18:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Hoops gza reported by User:Dpmuk (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: (Note: done at some time as warning given)
 * 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Been discussed on user's talk page and in the edit log - which from the comments I think this user is aware of.

Comments:

Dpmuk (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24h. Obvious violation of 3RR. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Sundowners reported by User:76.248.144.143 (Result: sprot)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

i'm sorry, i'm not certain of how to use the warning templates. i'll drop him a note on his user page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

i'm not certain if i have this form filled out correctly, so here's how i jotted it down in wordpad:

user:Sundowners is edit-warring at the article for Little Green Footballs

He blanked the section: "Alteration and Deletion of Posts here.[]

another user reinstated it, and he blanked it again here. []

finally, i reinstated it with an advisement to discuss the section in talk, but he instead blanked it again here. []

I have reverted again, but this looks like it's going to be a problem.

also, another fresh user, Spacejesus5000, has entered the fray, along with a couple of opponents.

76.248.144.143 (talk) 05:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A request for protection of the page has been made. See here. Minima  c  ( talk ) 06:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * i object to the request for protection for the reasons stated here. I would prefer mediation. i'll put in a request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.248.144.143 (talk) 07:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * by Ged UK. -Atmoz (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

User:AVanover reported by Uncle Dick (talk) (Result: Reverted, warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 09:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 19:11,  1 November 2010  (edit summary: "Added a section for a cultural "rule".")
 * 2) 08:01,  2 November 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 394233780 by Uncle Dick (talk), not dubious or sourceless, check new link added")
 * 3) 08:17,  2 November 2010  (edit summary: "In this context, urban dictionary is reliable. This is a cultural phenomena and therefore a cultural source, from the people, was used.")
 * 4) 08:40,  2 November 2010  (edit summary: "Actually, I am correct. It's tertiary source which gets it's information from a primary (people), specifically a compendium (i.e. a list or collection of various items, in this case: definitions).")

AVanover has attempted to add dubiously sourced content to Age disparity in sexual relationships regarding the mythical "half your age plus 7 rule". After I reverted his unsourced edits, the user reverted back to his content with an added citation to the ever reliable Urban Dictionary, which offers half a dozen "definitions" for the phrase. User refuses to participate in an active discussion on the article talk page regarding this content. I am under the impression that Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source based on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_37#Urban_Dictionary_is.2Fis_not_a_Reliable_Source. previous discussions] on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. —Uncle Dick (talk) 09:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Diff of warning: here


 * I have reverted the edit and warned the editor, as it is a clear violation of WP:RS. Any further attempts to re-add this material without support from other editors will result in a block. Looie496 (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Inspector123 reported by User:Jasepl (Result: semi)
Page:

User being reported:


 * This user, and several IPs self-admittedly used by the same user (User:119.155.37.2, User:119.155.43.160 and user:116.71.3.94 are only today's selection). User's basic contention is always "I know what I am adding is correct". Whilst that may well be true, one of pur primary tenets is to include a valid source when editing. Or at least to explain why something is being altered. Said user flat out refuses to do any such thing, instead resorting to a litany of abuse when challenged. Here's a couple of examples: and.

Note that while some words, such as those starting with "f" and "b" are common enough for all to understand, a lot of the rant is incomprehensible to me, but I assume it is swearing.

Also, all of these avatars have (individually and collectively) exceeded 3RR by some margin. And the page listed above is just one example. Jasepl (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have semi-protected the article, which should at least prevent sock disruption for a while. Looie496 (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Jasepl (Result: Malformed report)


I would like to report this sockpuppet of Zaps93 and 124x247x221x146 kindly take strict notice of this person, also see how in defience he reverts valid edits as if he owns this site, he's disturbed now because his authority is being challenged.119.155.37.2 (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: There is no user named Jaspel. Looie496 (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see that this relates to the report above by -- already handled. Looie496 (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I fixed the above header to refer to User:Jasepl, spelled properly. EdJohnston (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Arthur Rubin reported by User:Passionless (Result: decline)
Page:

User being reported: Passionless (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC) This user may be an admin, but he reverted the same edit 15 times in 12 hours ( Oct 24 Current Events), and tried to start a war with me on another issue in the same portal. Passionless (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll have to provide some evidence if you want those statements taken seriously. The statement about reverting the same edit 15 times in 12 hours is obviously false, as the article history shows. Looie496 (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * oh, my bad, I'm use to current events histories all being the same date, it was 14 over 5 days...but it does include 4 in 25hours (Oct 28/29) and 5 in 16 hours (Nov 1/2), sorry about that, Passionless (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Could use some more discussion and the phrasing is suboptimal, but no big deal. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Austria12 reported by User:Richwales (Result: Protected)
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: N/A; please note that I (Richwales) am only reporting an incident which I observed; I myself have not been involved in any recent editing on this page.

Comments: I advised the user of this notification on his [ talk page]. He responded by [ semi-blanking] his talk page.

Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Both and  have violated 3RR here. Looie496 (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: Austria12 has been blocked as a sock of a banned editor, and I have therefore unprotected the page. Looie496 (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Rarevogel / User:84.83.145.241 reported by User:Jayjg (Result: 1w for IP)
Page:

User being reported: /

Comments:

Note: This is a notice of edit-warring, not 3RR violation. User:Rarevogel / User:84.83.145.241 was blocked a couple of days ago for persistent edit-warring on the Berber people article. The report is here: Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive143. In essence, since September 21 he has regularly reverted an infobox to his own preferred pictures, while refusing to discuss why, or the appropriateness of his edits, on the article talk page. Following the block, he edited a small amount using his userid, but still did not discuss the issue. Today he returned to the page as his IP, and reverted to his infobox yet again. He still has made no comment on the article talk page; nor, in fact, even in the edit-summary of his latest revert. Jayjg (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (The IP, that is.) Looie496 (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

User:99.231.241.146 reported by User:Kintetsubuffalo (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

This article is the site of an edit war by a contentious IP on one side, and myself and two other registered editors on the other. IP removes information because the company website (not an RS) claims something different, and dubious. IP then screams vandalism. Several times this past hour, so our rollbacks will appear as 3RR, when in fact we were returning the article to its previous state.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 11:34, 3 November 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:


 * Result - Article fully protected by TFOWR. EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

User: Ezzex reported by User:Jiujitsuguy (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:


 * First revert 3 November 2010 @20:33 Edit summary: “Remove POV”


 * Second revert 3 November 2010 @20:40, No edit summary


 * Third revert 3 November 2010 @21:24, No edit summary


 * Fourth revert 3 November 2010 @22:52, No edit summary


 * Fifth revert 3 November 2010 @23:27, No edit summary

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

User: Ezzex has now violated 3RR by making 5 reverts and reverting four editors in a span of less than 3hrs. He fails to discuss his reverts on the Talk page and offers no explanation in the edit summary. He has also been given a previous 48hr block for edit warring--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Recent and rapid edit-warring. The warning came late but as he/she has been blocked previously for edit-warring a warning is unnecessary. Will also notify of ARBPIA discretionary sanctions. Mkativerata (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Gangwonackr reported by User:Kusunose (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: As the user in question is the sole significant content contributer, I have explained relevant guidelines in his/her talk page.

Comments:

This report is for edit waring, not 3RR. User:Gangwonackr has been changing reference to the Sea of Japan to "East Sea", ignoring guidelines (WP:NC-KO) provided in the edit summary and the editor's talk page. He/She has never explained his/her edit in edit summary and did not responded in talk pages. --Kusunose 07:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This seems like a very slow-moving edit war. Anyway, I've reminded Gangwonackr about having to use an edit summary for any reverts, since he/she has never used it before. I don't think any action is needed here. Minima  c  ( talk ) 14:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Gangwonackr created this article a few months ago, and he insists on reverting certain names in the article to his own style preferences, which contradict the ones generally used in Wikipeda. For example he insists that Sea of Japan be called the East Sea. Since he rarely edits anything but this one article, and he is here less than once a month on average, we face the seldom-used need to issue a long block just to get his attention. If he will partake of any reasonable discussion, the block could be lifted. I suggest three months just so that the block will not escape his notice. EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it should be interesting to see what Gangwonackr does next after I've reminded him about not using any edit summaries. It would be harsh to block him now before he edits again. After all, he's only a newcomer. Minima  c  ( talk ) 06:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - 48 hours for long-term edit-warring. After being here seven months, he should not still get credit for being a newcomer if he shows himself unwilling to follow policy. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

User:JPMcGrath reported by Hamitr (talk) (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 04:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 23:55,  2 November 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 392121879 by SeanNovack (talk)  See Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)")
 * 2) 03:03,  3 November 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 394495193 by Mudwater (talk)  See Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)")
 * 3) 20:55,  3 November 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 394537838 by SeanNovack (talk)  Further edit warring will be reported")
 * 4) 02:35,  4 November 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 394671724 by Hamitr (talk) restore status quo before edit war")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Hamitr (talk) 04:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 17:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Thanos5150 reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result:1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 07:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 17:06,  3 November 2010  (edit summary: "Hapgood is an accredited scholar and we have no reason to doubt the letters are genuine.")
 * 2) 19:21,  3 November 2010  (edit summary: "Restore edit by DougWeller")
 * 3) 22:32,  3 November 2010  (edit summary: "Hapggod is specifically referring to only Queen Maudland in relation to the Piri Reis map. See Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings p72-75. He is not "mistaking" S.America for Antarctica as is implied here")
 * 4) 23:03,  3 November 2010  (edit summary: "He clearly says he believes Queen Maudland was incorrectly connected to S.America by omission of separation of water. He does not say the mass as a whole is Antarctica. Read it yourself.")
 * 5) 00:20,  4 November 2010  (edit summary: "You have reverted my edit 3 times. Do not do it again. Go to discussion if you have a problem. It clearly says what Hapgood actually thought, but also that it is generally thought to be S.America.")
 * 6) 01:57,  4 November 2010  (edit summary: "YOU have been warned about 3 edits and have been asked to go to discussion. A discussion has already been opened. STOP reverting this edit. IT IS YOU who is the problem.")


 * Diff of warning: here

Comments:

I'm not sure who is right here (but will look into it later) and it is being discussed on the talk page, but the editor has been blocked for edit warring recently and should know better by now. Dougweller (talk) 07:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * However you define revert there are more than three of them within 24 hours and coming so soon after the last block nothing shorter than a week off is warranted. Mkativerata (talk) 07:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Anaxial reported by User:117.195.211.24 (Result:wrong area)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

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

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

Comments:

Here is the case... I'm an Anon, and a responsible Wikipedia user. I see a mistake, I correct it. I don't login. Period.

I went to the Siula Grande page today and found, a curiously incorrect statement about first ascent of the peak: 1936 July 28 North Ridge by Arnold Schwarzenegger and Erwin Schneider from Germany. I'm like, ok that's not true, may be some one did a mistake or it's a case of vandalism. So I go to history and see that yes, the edit 22:40, 1 November 2010 168.156.43.239 replaces the word Awerzger with Schwarzenegger. So I undo that edit to revert the article back to the previous version which looks fine. I come back to the page after watching Touching the Void (film) to check a fact, voila... I have a warning on my Anon talk page from User:Anaxial for seemingly vandalizing the article.

Is reverting any anon edit without reading a norm these days? It wasn't so when Wikipedia was new! I did write a strong-worded note on the user's talk page and undid his/her changes. But then I went to the user's talk archive and found this has been going for a long time. There are many such reports of incorrect accusations of vandalism.

My question is what action, if any, can you Admins take against this user?

Or no action will be taken as it doesn't matter because Anon edits are bullshit anyways?

Regards,

'''A fairly pissed off long-time Anon contributor... AND I won't goddamn create an account again to login!''' --117.195.211.24 (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless you can show some sort of pattern for this user reverting IPs at random, I doubt you'll see any action taken. WP:AGF. They made a mistake. You already commented on their talk page. Did you consider waiting for a response before coming to the (edit warring) noticeboard and asking for action to be taken? --Onorem♠Dil 20:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said read the user's talk page for similar cases. Moreover, I had 5 extra minutes, I told you guys about it. You are fine with people reverting anon edits without reading, fine... I stop making contributions, and let Arnold Schwarzenegger climb the goddamn mountain! If anon edits are not tolerated, c'mon make a policy change and make the site read-only for anyone who doesn't login. Free Encyclopedia that anyone can edit is all hypocrisy! --117.195.211.24 (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I did miss the part where you mentioned the users archives. It would still be nice to have some specifics. I've looked over the archive and don't see the many such reports. --Onorem♠Dil 20:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll admit to a few other instances, but I don't think there's many (the records are, of course, available, to see whether or not you agree with my assessment). I've made some mistakes, and reverted any warnings I may have given on their User page when I've been alerted to them. I don't think its accurate to say that I automatically revert all anon IP edits I come across, since there are a great number I don't - fairly difficult for me to prove that, though, AFAIK. Anaxial (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong area, no edit warring. Secret account 02:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Number 57 reported by 109.186.253.85 (talk) (Result:Page protected )
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 22:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 11:26,  2 November 2010  (edit summary: "rv edit by what is clearly a sock of a banned user (check the edit history)")
 * 2) 14:35,  2 November 2010  (edit summary: "Per talk & input of other (non sock) editors")
 * 3) 20:26,  3 November 2010  (edit summary: "rv sock")
 * 4) 21:23,  3 November 2010  (edit summary: "Per NPOV per talk")
 * 5) 13:09,  4 November 2010  (edit summary: "per talk")
 * 6) 19:19,  4 November 2010  (edit summary: "Comment on talk if you like")

Comments:

Number 57 received a 12 hour block for 3RR earlier in the week at this page, but does not seem to care less and comes back to blindly revert all other editors who disagree with his evident POV WP:OWNership of the page and decision pick and choose the sources he deems worthy. The above six edits occurred after his block was lifted, the last four violate 3RR again. All four edits seem to rv an entirely different editor and the edit war is purely being waged by Number 57 against others. The editor will claim that one of the rvs was a sock, fine, still should have taken a step back. --109.186.253.85 (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Page was protected, though it won't really help because he's an adminstrator. I would prefered a block in the case for edit warring after 3rr at the same article, but haven't been editing the article since protection so. Secret account 02:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

TAKE THAT PROGRESS (Result: both warned)
Progress (Take That album) is being constantly reverted by User:Yids2010 claiming "you have no reason to keep changing this. its the same as the other version but without mentioning irrelevant artists. i will continue to revert until you understand that.", violating 3RR rule.Reqluce (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like you're both equally guilty here. Is that not true? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree this is severe edit warring with personal attacks throwing in, I recommend a block for both. Secret account 02:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * is on top of this, so I will refrain from blocking both editors to see if they discontinue edit warring. If either editor continues, I think a block would be in order anyway. Reqluce, I would appreciate if you were to moderate your tone. For the most part, there is no need to address other editors in your edit summaries, and especially not in such a manner as might drive them off. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

User:HighSpeed-X reported by User:Qwyrxian (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: First told about rule at:, officially warned at

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Since the editor appeared to be new (although now that I check, user has edited sporadically since March), I brought it to their talk page rather than the article's talk (as I wasn't sure if they were aware of how article talk pages work, but at least a personal talk page produces automatic warnings).

Comments:

User is making nationlist edits to a contentious article by removing names from one side of the dispute. As pointed out to the editor, this very issue is not only being discussed on the article's talk page, but is also the subject of its own article, Senkaku Islands dispute. Editor was asked to stop reverting and join our conversations there, but refuses to do so. Editor needs a temporary block to prevent continued edit warring on the page, and to hopefully convince the user to discuss the issue rather than just warring about it. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, user has repeatedly ignored WP:CONSENSUS amongst other editors, refuses to engage in discussion regarding the matter on the talk page, and continues to revert those who undo his edits. His edit summaries show that he is only intent on pursuing his own POV, and has no intention of compromising towards an NPOV. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 02:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And I consider this lenient. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Greyshark09 and User:Lisa reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: both G and L cautioned)
Page:
 * User:Greyshark09

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Not necessarily four reverts in 24 hours, but edit-warring nevertheless. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Lisa

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Clearly a 3RR violation. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You could have combined for both users you know, but it's a clear violation of 3rr by a person who should know better, see the last dif. I don't think Greyshark should be blocked because he stopped edit warring after Lisa's "warning" and it wasn't four reverts during 24 hours, but Lisa should. Secret account 02:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sections combined, as these need to be treated in tandem. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Lisa is over the line by my count, but has also made substantial efforts to engage in discussion and attract the attention of other interested editors. The violation is only by an hour or so, so I do not think that a strict reading would be beneficial here. Greyshark09 has been repeatedly inserting substantively the same material, but as Secret notes has not done so after being appraised of WP:3RR. They have also been advised on usertalk to avoid WP:OR, so hopefully this can proceed to productive discussion without further delay. User:Lisa: please be more careful in counting your reverts and more patient in waiting for outside input. User:Greyshark09, please wait for consensus before reintroducing material with which another editor disagrees. There is no deadline. If you return your edit to that article without a clear and active consensus at Talk:Judaism, I will block you for edit warring. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Rwflammang reported by User:LoveMonkey (Result: stale, but advice)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor Esoglou has been following me through various Eastern Orthodox articles I have contributed to in the past and rewritten them to in ways that I have objected to. I however have not revert warring with Esoglou in quote sometime. Now it appears that Esoglou has a fellow Roman Catholic friend he has found who will now tag team with him to take out information that Esoglou does not like and can not refute with valid sourcing. However the information I have posted is valid (or was said to be so far) and sources involved directly in the issue. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If I were going to block anybody here, it would be the filing editor. But it seems better to let this play out a little longer before intervening. Looie496 (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Advice needed: Both Esoglou and LoveMonkey have been at this board in the past. They specialize in similar topics, but they appear to be scornful of each others' work. They have been advised about WP:Dispute resolution, but neither party has tried any of the steps so far as I'm aware. Should the 3RR board be accepting unlimited return visits from people who find it inconvenient to follow policy? Here are some past reports:


 * Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive130 (Filioque, May 2010)
 * Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive133 (Filioque, June 2010)
 * Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive136 (July 2010)
 * Does anyone have any ideas of what to do? Possibly a 1RR restriction for both parties on all religious topics for six months?  A 1RR would have prevented the series of reverts detailed in this report. Thanks for any comment by other editors. I moved this report to the bottom of the page for more visibility. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston has asked me personally to add comments here. I am sorry that I can offer no advice.  Bringing others in has been tried.  They don't persevere in their efforts, doubtless find them fruitless and frustrating.  The present dispute is between LoveMonkey and another editor, LoveMonkey blames it on me.  See his opening comment above, in which he suggests that Rwflammang is editing the article because of being, LoveMonkey says, a Roman Catholic friend of mine.  And I see that LoveMonkey, when protesting against Rwflammang, has used the same exclamation that he recently used against another editor (again, not me): "How Roman Catholic of you!"  I have had absolutely nothing to do with Rwflammang's effort to improve the article, and I hope that neither EdJohnston nor anybody else has been misled by LoveMonkey's outburst into thinking that I was in some way behind it.  To this dispute I am totally extraneous.  I have even held off my efforts, which I would otherwise be continuing in these days, to overcome by dint of patient arguing LoveMonkey's systematic reversal of my edits.  You can see, in the subsections under Talk:Filioque (the heading is LoveMonkey's), how I set about discussing separately each of the seven items that he reverted in the same way as he is systematically reverting Rwflammang's edits.  Of those items I have so far solved only one, with the removal of the statement, "The Franks began to be spoken of as Western Romans", which LoveMonkey falsely attributed to two sources that said nothing of the sort.  Instead of rephrasing the statement or producing a citation to support it, you can see how he preferred to write at length of the ill-treatment meted out by Westerners to the Greeks and Russians over the post-Frank centuries, down to Mussolini and Hitler - as if that showed that the Franks were called Western Romans!  An intervention by me at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard brought above an unusually speedy solution to this argument, and I was planning to make, if necessary, a similar intervention to solve the one other item on which active discussion between him and me had begun, with a view to then tackling the remaining five.  But I judged it much more pleasant to be a spectator of the LoveMonkey-Rwflammang dispute, rather than to pursue my own dispute for now.  I am watching the discussion on the present dispute with interest, but with little hope that it will be more successful than those on the LoveMonkey disputes in which I myself was involved.  Esoglou (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Ed Johnston I will comment as well. I will say that the reverts here were blanket deletes, large deletes with no conversation about them before they where done on the article talkpage. No consensus. I did not see any indication of any of the edits until after they were done. As for the example from Esoglou that is a red herring as User talk:Andrew Lancaster clearly told Esoglou go back and attempt to compromise and when Esoglou did the end result was a collaboration and resolution. To the administrator Looie496 how wikipedia administrator of you, shot first and then ask questions later. If you have the desire to dig in do so please. The articles can use all the help in the world but what you posted does not sound as if you are approaching this deductively you appear by your comments to have already made up your mind. Also since everyone is so trigger happy could they confirm why no Eastern Orthodox editors or administrators here have been asked to contribute to the discussion or is it that Ed and Looie496 have already made up their minds and are only now dealing with formalities? LoveMonkey (talk) 02:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Moving forward - this report is stale now, but EdJohnston raises a very good point. Looking at this in the context of the previous reports, LoveMonkey appears to be using this board as a weapon in content disputes, which is unacceptable. There also appear to be significant concerns regarding their use of sources. LM appears to be a major contributor to the topic area, and I would not be comfortable restricting them on this basis alone, but a request for comment may be in order (please let me know if anyone starts one). I would, however, caution LoveMonkey to be cautious in filing future reports to this board to ensure beforehand that adequate attempt has been made to resolve the dispute at the relevant talkpage and that their own editing practices are above reproach. I would also like to request that all involved parties avoid reverting each others' edits more than once (at most). This is merely a request, but it appears that this series of disputes is in danger of growing personalized and partisan, and that never ends well for anyone. Best of luck, - 2/0 (cont.) 16:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand, I agree and accept and your points are good and duly noted 2/0. Thank you for your time and your observations are welcome. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

User: InaMaka reported by User: Stonemason89 (Result: 1 week)

 * NOTE: This is a notice of edit-warring, not 3RR violation.

User: InaMaka has been acting in a disruptive manner during and after the recent United States midterm elections. In a span of ten minutes he made the following six reverts, all of which were on candidate BLPs and all of which were reverts of edits made by User: Arbor832466, against whom InaMaka appears to have a personal vendetta:. He also inserts his own personal opinions into edit summaries, for example:. Finally, he unilaterally deletes articles about candidates, claiming they are non-notable even though they received widespread media coverage:  ; it's not up to InaMaka to decide what is notable and what isn't; and he expresses a very defiant, bullheaded attitude toward other editors:. He has been repeatedly warned about such behavior on his talk page (and blocked three times in the past for edit warring), but doesn't seem to ever learn. This behavior is quite long-term and I think it's time it stopped. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The politicians that have never held political office are not qualified to have articles about them in Wikipedia. Krystal Ball has never held elective office.  Under the defined terms of having an article about a politician, Krystal Ball does not meet any of those requirements.  The election is over and article was deleted.  The same applies to Stephene Moore.  Once again, she has never held political office and she does not qualify as a politician.--InaMaka (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The standard for notability is not whether they win. We have an article on Jim Clymer, who has never won an election in his life. He does pass the notability standard, though, because many media outlets have written about him. Again, you by yourself are not the arbiter of what is notable and what isn't. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would also note that despite InaMaka edit-warring over a notability tag on Stephene Moore, he has not elaborated on such concerns despite being invited to do so at Talk:Stephene Moore. Drive-by tagging without justification is disruptive and a waste of everyone's time. Tarc (talk) 15:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of these edits are also BLP violations. Christopher Connor (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * More on user's talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like you did a thorough job in checking his contributions. Christopher Connor (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami and User:Medeis reported by User:DavidOaks (Result: Protected)
Page:

Users being reported:

Reporting a dispute at Folk etymology over the inclusion of material on the term as used in folklore; two editors will admit only material relating to linguistics. I have not been able to get either to address the actual issues, and indiscriminate reversions have been done. Additionally, there has been canvassing. One of the disputants is an admin, and is ruling there that my sources are non-RS. S/he has also placed a message on my talkpage accusing me of 3RR violation -- demonstrably untrue. Between them they may have done 3RR, but the overall behavior is what amounts to edit warring. The article is not improving, the atmosphere has soured; the effect is to exclude others from editing and controlling the article.

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:

Wow, I really screwed up the format, but don't know how. Sorry -- don't do this much. DavidOaks (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC) DavidOaks (talk) 02:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Folk etymology is a very well defined academic concept in linguistics. This has been demonstrated over and over with multiple refs to standard textbooks and linguistic encyclopedias and dictionaries on the article's talk page.  The above editor seems to have a good faith interest in folklore and urban legends, which can easily be handled under separate articles with whatever names.  He has been repeatedly invited to do so.


 * But he responds to well intentioned comments with incomprehensible run on objections, inappropriate personal accusations, and what at best amount non-sequiturs, topped off by multiple reverts and assertions that unless refs can be provided denying his exact POV it must be accepted as fact. This shows little understanding of the topic or of wikipedia policy.  In frustration, and rather than report him for edit warring, which was my first thought, and which I could easily have done, I sought the advice of an editor, User:Kwamikagami, whom, although I have often disagreed with him elsewhere on specifics, I know to be well versed in linguistics, and asked him which discussion board I should refer this matter to.  He suggested a discussion board and I posted the article there requesting attention.  This is what User:DavidOaks describes as canvassing.


 * This is a technical subject. The attention of editors knowledgeable on the subject would be helpful, but simple adherence to WP policy, like deferring to standard textbooks and encyclopedias rather than Snopes as a reference will suffice.  If DavidOaks cannot edit under those conditions he should, perhaps, edit elsewhere, voluntarily or not, as is warranted.μηδείς (talk) 02:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Here are the texts of refs from DavidOaks most recent reversions 321 of the article, including a personally addressed command in the text of the article that I produce a ref for material he has added. My emphasis is in bold:

^ "The frequently encountered interpretation of this technical term of historical linguistics in the sense of a mere amateur etymology is itself a wrong conclusion from the word elements. By folk etymology is known always a specific phenomenon of language change, not a merely false etymology." Medeis, this is your source, so you'll have to supply the rest

^ from Snopes.com: "A constant of folk etymologies seems to be that the odder a word sounds to us, the sillier the story we invent to explain its origins...." sv pumpernickel; "I'm not quite sure what to make of this folk etymology..." ("red light district" so-named because railmen left their lanterns at the door of the brothel; hardly morphological re-analysis; note the causalness of the usage, earmark of the established phrase, as linguists usually take it). "Pluck Yew" is aid to be a folk etymology; the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette treats of the folk etymology of "Lord Love a Duck."; “folk etymologies” are explicitly treated as equivalent to “etymological myths” in a course a U-Ontario [3];Sir James Fraser equates the two in note 1 p. 91 of his ed’n of Apollodorus (cites C.G. Heyne); David Wilton “Word Myths: Debunking Linguistic Urban Legends”. Oxford UP 2004

I request that DavidOaks be notified that his actions are inappropriate.μηδείς (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I came into this because of an edit war. Medeis' side is well sourced, David's may not be. One of his sources is the Snopes web page, which I doubt constitutes a RS; another (a PDF file posted on a course website) made no mention of the term 'folk etymology' he claimed it supported. Perhaps his other sources are better, but this is not a promising beginning. — kwami (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (Just so no one waits around for me to weigh in) Said my piece; beyond that, will let the article's revision history and talkpage (where I have addressed these very points by both editors repeatedly) speak for themselves. Thanks. DavidOaks (talk) 03:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no edit warring going on at Folk etymology except on the part of User:DavidOaks. There is a clear majority of editors on the Talk Page who agree that his edits to the article are inappropriate--Medeis, Kwami, myself.  If Medeis had not reverted DavidOaks' last edit, I would have.  He is pushing his POV without building a consensus.  While he may have a valid subject that needs coverage in Wikipedia, he has provided no reliable sources to support that POV, nor why his topic must be covered in a linguistics article rather than in its own article.  --Taivo (talk) 04:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought productive conversation had commenced, and certainly I made strenuous efforts to fulfill requirements laid down, even though I repeatedly asked according to what policy the requirements were made; what came in response was simple WP:Ididn'thearthat. To me, this is tag-teaming, abusive editing, and one of the disputants is simultaneously acting as an admin. Evidence is ignored, arguments are ignored, positions are simply re-asserted. The admin needs to choose one role or the other, and another admin needs to rule on several questions that have been identified on the talkpage. The behavior has effectively locked the article. DavidOaks (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Result: Fully protected two weeks. If consensus is reached on talk, protection can be lifted. There may some question as to whether DavidOaks' sources meet RS standards, but if so a posting at WP:RSN might be considered. Use editprotected to get changes made which have consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 05:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I would welcome review of these sources for WP:RS. The claim is that the term "Folk etymology" has a defined meaning in folklore.  Those are simply three field encyclopedias treating the term discretely. Within linguistics, a different usage prevails. The first source, by the most prominent of living folklorists, author of the key textbook in the field and the discoverer of urban legends, significantly acknowledges the competing usages. It has been my position that the article should do likewise, and resistance to that claim has occasioned the conflict -- and considerable unpleasantness.


 * Additionally, on the talk page, a very large number of examples of actual usage were brought forward in order to illustrate the currency of the folkloric sense (including them here would clutter this page unhelpfully). These included specialized web sites and juried articles in multiple scholarly disciplines, including numerous telling instances of linguists clearly using the "folklore" sense (important because the claim had been consistently that the term had a very strict meaning within linguistics); however these examples were not intended ultimately for inclusion in the article, merely to document and to illustrate discussion. They were not offered as WP:RS for article purposes, and should not be evaluated as such. DavidOaks (talk) 07:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Ring Cinema reported by User:Geoff B (Result: no action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: All plot summary related. Ring Cinema at first resisted a new plot section with reverts, then set about editing the new plot to resemble the former plot.

Geoff B (talk) 20:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You both violated 3rr in that article, page should be reverted to the version prior to the edit war and protected. Secret account 02:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If I'd caught this 24 hours ago, you'd both have been blocked. Too late, move on. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Number 57 reported by Shuki (talk) (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 11:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
 * 1) 11:26,  2 November 2010  (edit summary: "rv edit by what is clearly a sock of a banned user (check the edit history)")
 * 2) 14:35,  2 November 2010  (edit summary: "Per talk & input of other (non sock) editors")
 * 3) 20:26,  3 November 2010  (edit summary: "rv sock")
 * 4) 21:23,  3 November 2010  (edit summary: "Per NPOV per talk")
 * 5) 13:09,  4 November 2010  (edit summary: "per talk")
 * 6) 19:19,  4 November 2010  (edit summary: "Comment on talk if you like")

Comments:

Besides violating 3RR yesterday, Number 57 coming off a block at the beginning of the week continues his crusade to ensure only his POV appears in the article. In this case, he manages to revert multiple and different editors to prevent any balance being inserted into the article. As an admin, he should know that it is better to back off and let cool heads prevail. On top of that, to ensure his POV, he gets the page protected though there is no vandalism, only a content dispute. --Shuki (talk) 11:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the "multiple and different editors" are sockpuppets and aggressive reverting IPs who didn't use the talk page. Not sure whether facilitating those guys by backing off and letting them prevail is really in the best interest of the project. Having said that, I'm sure you 2 can figure it out on the talk page.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 13:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (e/c) As noted in some of the edit summaries (and by other users) the page has unfortunately attracted some sock puppets, hence the multiple reversions and my request for page protection. I have also requested input from WikiProject Political Parties, as despite the comments of three editors on the talk page (myself, Mashkin and Zero), Shuki is unwilling to accept he is in a minority, and instead resorts to repeatedly reporting other users when they have reverted his edits to get his way. The most helpful thing anyone can do is to comment on the talk page because at the moment it is just deadlocked. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  13:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Reverting sock puppets is an exemption to 3RR, and besides the page is now protected. I don't think we need to take any further action here. PhilKnight (talk) 13:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sean and Phil, if they are all socks bring then to SPI to probe them, until then different editors with different IPs. 57, I don't know what WP policy or guideline you are referring to by claiming that the editors who edit in mainspace but don't add anything on the talk page can be reverted blindly making you immune to 3RR. --Shuki (talk) 13:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "The two users listed here are extremely Likely to be the same person as each other; they share the same useragent data, and Shen, Then? (talk · contribs) was using a proxy which is now blocked."  Sean.hoyland  - talk 14:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Hehest reported by User:Mutt Lunker (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

User:221.130.18.185 reported by User:Ophois (Result: semi)
Page:

User being reported: and

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments: This is the blocked user User:InkHeart, who has on numerous occasions come back through anons to start edit wars. Ω pho  is  00:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * All I did was add change the headers sizes. I did not want to start an edit war. 111.161.3.220 (talk) 00:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll add that changing the headers was exactly one of User:InkHeart's antics in creating edit wars, and look, a new IP address to respond here?  on camera (t)  01:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't start edit wars you guys do because you won't leave me alone. I just want to edit like everyone else. And actually its the same IP it just changes when I edit different articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.161.3.220 (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Semi-protected by . - 2/0 (cont.) 04:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

97.77.103.82 and CAtruthwatcher reported by User:DC (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported: and  (most likely the same person)

Previous version reverted to: 5:42 11/3


 * 1st revert: 2:44 11/4
 * 2nd revert: 0:33 11/5
 * 3rd revert: 3:35 11/5
 * 4th revert: 6:12 11/5
 * 5th revert: 7:59 11/5
 * 6th revert: 8:13 11/5
 * 7th revert: 7:31 11/6

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: IP warned CAtruth warned

Discussions on talk page herehere and here.

Comments:

I took it here instead of ANI since it's most likely one person doing all the editing. Users both like to use the term "vandal" in their edit summaries, and refer to the three editors who've disagreed with them as sockpuppets. DC  T • C   08:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * . The two users are confirmed to be the same editor. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Trust Is All You Need reported by User:Nsk92 (Result: 12h each)
Page:

User being reported:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

See the article talk page discussion in the thread that I started: Talk:Georgy Malenkov for more details. Nsk92 (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments: I should say that I myself am also guilty here - I actually have 4 reverts on the Malenkov article. I did not realize that I was in a breach of 3RR when doing the last revert. I did stop, and continued the discussion at the article talk page. However, User:Trust Is All You Need did not stop, but continued to edit-war and to revert another editor, User:Str1977, even after having been given a 3RR warning. Still, whomever reviews this report may want to block me as well, in the interests of fairness. Nsk92 (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Trust Is All You Need reported by User:Str1977
Page:, but exhibiting similar behaviour on related pages. User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 23:08, 30 October 2010


 * 0th revert: Revision as of 12:49, 6 November 2010 (just outside the 24h period but still noteworthy)
 * 1st revert: Revision as of 13:02, 6 November 2010 (on a second issue)
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 13:07, 6 November 2010 (on second issue)
 * 3rd revert: 13:18, 6 November 2010 (on second issue)
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 13:49, 6 November 2010 (on first issue again)
 * 5th revert: Revision as of 14:00, 6 November 2010 (on first issue again)
 * 6th revert: Current revision as of 14:32, 6 November 2010 (first issue again)


 * User has been blocked for 3RR before, hence he knows about the rule
 * He also mentioned it to me in an edit summary (in a false accusation) - I then pointed his error and his violation out to him in my edit summary
 * So its false when i say you have breached the 3RR rule, but when you do it to me its okay??? Am i missing something here? --TIAYN (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are missing something here. At the time you reverted an edit by User:Str1977 with an edit summary accusing him of having broken 3RR, he only had 2 reverts on you, whereas your edit was something like your 6th revert, and done already after you received a 3RR warning at your talkpage. Nsk92 (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussions on talk page here, involving two different users trying to reason with the user.

Comments:

I came into an already existing conflict (partly about another issue) and started my report, not knowing that the user had already reverted that often. Str1977 (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

PS. Unbeknownst to me, User:Nsk92 reported the same case as well. I therefore make this section a subsection of his report. Str1977 (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I said to you early on stop and lets discuss this, why are you blaiming me??? Come on, I mean seriously, you are blaiming me for everything here. Secondly, saying that I contined the edit war is false, I never started removing information from the Malenkov article, you did.... When a person is First Secretary and you remove the information it is called "vandalism". Instead of actually trying to solve our problem you have been stuborn the whole way through, even claiming that Stalin and Malenkov were not First Secretaries, which they both are seeing that the General Secretaryship was abolished in 1934.. Just as i wrote on the Malenkov talk page, I'm beginning to become exhausted.. This discussion is going nowhere, and you won't listen, which makes it even worse!!! I won't denie it however, I did break the 3RR rule, and for that i'm sorry. --TIAYN (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This page is for reporting your behaviour violating Wikipedia's rules. No more, no less. I will not discuss content issues with you here. Please read what Vandalism actually is. I will not respond here anymore. I advise you to do the same. Str1977 (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Nsk92 reported by User:Trust Is All You Need
Page:, but exhibiting similar behaviour on related pages. User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 13:41, 6 November 2010


 * 0th revert: Revision as of 13:41, 6 November 2010
 * 1st revert: Revision as of 14:02, 6 November 2010 (on a second issue)
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 14:03, 6 November 2010 (on second issue)
 * 3rd revert: 14:11, 6 November 2010 (on second issue)
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 14:43, 6 November 2010 (on first issue again)
 * 5th revert: Revision as of 14:59, 6 November 2010 (on first issue again)
 * 6th revert: Current revision as of 15:26, 6 November 2010 (first issue again)


 * The user does not want to discuss the future of the article, instead he edit wars.. Its simple (see above for more info). --TIAYN (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm new on posting others at 3RR, so if i did anything wrong... sorry. --TIAYN (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The diffs you provided above involve edits by two different users, User:Nsk92 (me) and User:Str1977. Are you saying that me and User:Str1977 are the same user?? Nsk92 (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * All three blocked for 12 hours for a 3RR vio and a tag-team edit war. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

User:NeutralityPersonified reported by User:Xenophrenic (Result: warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Original insertion of disputed text


 * 1st revert: 00:14, 5 November 2010
 * 2nd revert: 00:57, 5 November 2010
 * 3rd revert: 02:09, 6 November 2010
 * 4th revert: 03:01, 6 November 2010
 * 5th revert: 20:54, 6 November 2010
 * 6th revert: 21:13, 6 November 2010

Diff of previous edit warring / 3RR warning for the same article: One of several warnings

See the article talk page discussion in this thread: Discussion for more details.

Comments: Please see Sockpuppet investigations/TruthfulPerson/Archive for more information on this editor's history. This editor has been previously warned and blocked several times, and is quite familiar with policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There are definitely some ducky concerns, but the SPI was inconclusive. I have notified the user that edit warring is not on, which may hopefully solve the issue. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Lvivske reported by User:LokiiT (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert: (reverted wording and removed unreliable source tag)
 * 4th revert: (reverted wording and removed unreliable source tag)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (He responded with a "no you are" response )

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: talk page discussion ignored; Discussion on both our talk pages, amounted to him calling me a conspiracy theorist for questioning the validity of a self-published blog.
 * Well, I'm not the only one who has questioned your take on this. Your attempts to "discuss" with me started off with you quoting nonsense blogs, how can you expect me to continue on this road to nowhere? --Львівське (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

LokiiT (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Note he added a fifth revert, after warning editor should be blocked. Secret account 19:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
 * Here are the diffs for Lvivske on this article as generated by the 3rr.php tool:

The diffs on the same article for LokiiT are as follows: Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
 * 1) 23:20,  5 November 2010  (edit summary: "revert removing of cited material; Paul A. Goble is an award winning expert in this subject field and is very much a reliable source")
 * 2) 23:22,  5 November 2010  (edit summary: "/* Controversy */ another source on the subject")
 * 3) 00:40,  6 November 2010  (edit summary: "/* Controversy */")
 * 4) 04:23,  6 November 2010  (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 395085074 by Lvivske; I don't care if you have a personal vendetta against him, KyivPost and Eurasia Review are RS. using TW")
 * 5) 22:07,  6 November 2010  (edit summary: "/* Controversy */ + ref, not just Goble but Globalsib.com also confirming")
 * 6) 22:14,  6 November 2010  (edit summary: "/* Controversy */")
 * 7) 22:48,  6 November 2010  (edit summary: "KP is a reliable publication and news outlet, don't remove. This is reliable news, not Goble's opinion, adding a journal article on the topic. good grief.")
 * 8) 08:36,  7 November 2010  (edit summary: "rv. please use talk page before section blanking, this content is being discussed anyway")


 * 1) 22:03,  5 November 2010  (edit summary: "Paul Goble's blog is not a reliable source")
 * 2) 04:06,  6 November 2010  (edit summary: "I don't care what "awards" he's won, his blog is not a reliable source. WP:RS")
 * 3) 04:09,  6 November 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 21:48,  6 November 2010  (edit summary: "for now")
 * 5) 21:49,  6 November 2010  (edit summary: "/* Controversy */")
 * 6) 22:02,  6 November 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 7) 22:03,  6 November 2010  (edit summary: "")
 * 8) 22:36,  6 November 2010  (edit summary: "/* Controversy */ still an unreliable source. Perhaps it should be removed in favor of the new one you found?")

I've pointed Lvivske to the discussion here and asked him to respond. It seems that both users should be blocked for edit warring, unless they will agree to settle the dispute in a way that accords with policy. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I made a total of two reverts as part of this edit warring (three if you count my original edit, however that wasn't part of any edit war). I stopped as I did not want to be blocked; however my attempts to compromise were met with more reverts and unwarranted accusations of having a "personal vendetta" against the blogger in question, hence this report. I don't understand why you're threatening to block me. I stopped reverting (despite not breaking 3rr), yet the edit warring didn't stop as you noted. How can you consider my actions on equal grounds with Lvivske's? LokiiT (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The guy was deleting info from reliable sources and going on about some anti-Russian conspiracy theory. Majority of my reverts were re-inserting blanked material that I and GreyHood edited, reinserting reliable sources, and restoring while adding additional sources to comply with WP:PROVEIT. I contacted User:Greyhood in to get a 3rd party opinion and was fine with what he removed, figuring we'd come to a sensible, edited down and neutral conclusion. LoKiit then got one of friends (user:DonaldDuck) to come in and continue the section blanking (WP:MEAT). I've washed my hands of this nonsense; if GreyHood agrees it should go I'm perfectly fine with that consensus, just leave the conspiracy theory junk and deleting of reliable sources w/o regard for discussion out of this. Lets let cooler heads prevail, shall we?--Львівське (talk) 21:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (also) I did not ignore the talk page, you can see I responded to it; I also discussed on GreyHood's talk page. Lokiit kept calling the Kyiv Post a "self published blog" while in turn pointing me to a self published conspiracy blog to "prove" the author, Paul A. Goble (a respected professional in the field) is a CIA propagandist. I mean, come on, how can I be expected to deliberate on such screwy grounds?--Львівське (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You responded on the talk page after I made this report. And as you can see from the discussion that resulted, it has become abundantly clear that you are using an unreliable source in order to propagate a non-issue/hoax, and therefore my deletion of it was warranted. Also I never at any point called Kyiv-post a self-published blog. That's a complete fabrication. As for DonandDuck, I have never contacted him before; he came on his own. If you're going to make accusations of WP:MEAT I highly suggest you present some evidence for your claims. I don't appreciate being defamed. LokiiT (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are well aware I responded to the talk page before you filed this ridiculous complaint 1. You did call the Kyiv Post an unrelaible source and kept calling the Goble article, which was cited properly in the article, a "blog". I'm not making things up here, you've made the "blog" argument many times so far. Also, it's questionable whethere he (DonaldDuck) is a MP, considering he came in during your reverts and had an identical MO and argument. Do you want me to file a sockpuppetry case? I think you're making a much bigger deal out of this article than anyone should be. Calm down, use the talk page, work things out. You're getting really worked up over an issue that could easily be resolved if you just cooperated and kept your cool.--Львівське (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Look closely at the dates. First came my report, then came your response. There's almost an hour's difference there. And once again, I did not call Kyiv-post an unreliable source. Ever. I read Kyiv-post regularly and would never do such a thing. And if I did, it would be pretty easy to prove with a diff. And repeating myself, again, if you're going to accuse me of WP:MEAT (and now WP:SOCK, back it up with evidence. I would very much like for you to file a sockpuppet report. Everyone who's been involved in Eastern-Europe articles for a while knows who DD is. He's been around longer than I have I think. Anyways, I suggest you either retract your accusation, or file a report if you're not simply trying to defame me. LokiiT (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering I wasn't notified of this filing until a day later 1, and I was engaged in discussions on this matter hours prior to the filing itself (2, 3), why would you file something like this and claim I wasn't discussing before I even had a chance to discuss things? We had already talked on our talk pages on this matter; seems to me you're trying to inappropriately represent my conduct and willingness to work matters out so far. --Львівське (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You clearly saw my message on the article discussion page (as you referred to my "personal vendetta" in your edit summary) and had a chance to discuss it there first. But instead, you ignored it and reverted me. I had to bring the issue to your talk page. Therein you simply ignored everything I was saying and continued to revert my attempts to compromise. You didn't respond to my original thread in discussion until you had already broken WP:3RR and I had already filed this report. LokiiT (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You made no attempts to compromise, you continually blanked the information or tried to skew it. Compromise is getting Greyhood involved to trim it down for neutrality and verify the sources; you on the other hand, just kept making unfounded libelous claims about the source author...how can you expect someone to take you seriously? --Львівське (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Compromise is leaving the content there but adding an unreliable source tag, and attributing what was said to Goble. You reverted my attempt to compromise, twice. LokiiT (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Protected three days. Neither side gets much credit for diplomacy. Consider an WP:RFC or other steps of dispute resolution. You could ask at WP:RSN for an opinion about using the the Goble quote in the article. I see that there was already a discussion at WP:RSN about Goble's resport but the result looks inconclusive. If the fairness of the Russian Census to the members of various nationalities is truly in question, a wider search might turn up additional reports, and the article wouldn't have to depend solely on Goble for this possible fact. It is funny that Goble's observation would deserve so much space in an article which is hardly more than a stub. If the article were expanded with referenced content, that imbalance could be addressed. EdJohnston (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This already was done, but he didn't like the responses he got 1, 2--Львівське (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

User:87.114.90.86 reported by User:Dmol (Result: Semiprotected)
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: Several users have explained that this incident is not notable, but the user continues to edit war

--Dmol (talk) 04:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Note - I knew this looked familiar: this exact edit is cited by a recently retired user less than 48 hours ago as an example of why they left the project. is pretty clearly the same user as the reported IP, so it would be 5 reverts instead of 4. I fixed the diffs in this report, as they were off. Doc  talk  05:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for comments and fixing my links. I suspect the user is experienced as edits are properly formatted and show previous practice. He is even trying to issue warnings against me.--Dmol (talk) 05:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Result - Semiprotected two weeks. The 87.* editor clearly broke 3RR, and it is hardly worth it to block a dynamic IP, so we need to semiprotect for a while, while apologizing for the inconvenience to the good-faith IP editors. Parties on the other side of this dispute did not break 3RR but Dmol is pushing the limits of the edit-warring policy.  I suggest that nobody revert again until consensus is reached on talk. Use WP:DR if agreement can't be reached. EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Bijuts reported by User:Binoyjsdk (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Reverts from the first to last. The latest reverts are listed down: 29 September 15 October 24 October 25 October to 29 October 04 November 03 November
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:
 * 10th revert:
 * 11th revert:
 * 12th revert:
 * 13th revert:
 * 14th revert:
 * 15th revert:
 * 16th revert:
 * 11th revert:
 * 17th revert:
 * 18th revert:
 * 19th revert:
 * 20th revert:

The user seems to have a strong and biased POV towards Kochi. His edit patterns are similar. For instance, He wanted to remove the sentence "second largest city behind the capital", as he do not want it to be told as second behind another city. He even tried to change the Thiruvananthapuram article (which is the larget city in the state):, and was edit-warring in that article also for some time.

He wanted to remove the negetive images of Kochi:
 * Line 329:
 * Line 501:

He has not shown interest in Article talk pages and never participated in the discussions there :

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 
 * 

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Discussions on User talk page:
 * Discussions for Article improvement in Article talk page:
 * Advising the user:Bijuts to use WP:3O or WP:DISPUTE to handle content disputes:

Comments:

 BIN O Y  Talk 08:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Fully protected by SpacemanSpiff. Try to reach consensus on the talk page. If reverts continue after protection expires, blocks may be issued. EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Wayne Olajuwon (Result: no vio / page semi)

 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert:
 * Revision history of the page, includes four more reverts:


 * Warning to user:

This user reverted my series of edits five times in total under the pretense of "reverting vandalism." The edits in question were clearly not vandalism, and I made edit summaries to that effect; he made no attempt to discuss with me. They were, I admit, controversial, but they clearly reflect what the cited sources say. I am willing to engage discussion with this user, but not to condone censorship on his part. Regardless of this dispute, he has clearly violated the 3RR.128.151.26.110 (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Complaint is frivolous, and complainant may well be blocked for bringing this here. Wayne Olajuwon was quite correctly removing unsourced negative material, per WP:V. I see no discussion of this from the complainant on the articles' Talk pages. Rodhull  andemu  20:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I urge you to look at the materials more clearly. They were sourced, just that they appeared in the original sources and I didn't add any new sources. I would also like to add that the responsibility for discussion lies in those who unilaterally reverted other contributors' edits. Finally, 3RR applies to any content-based edits except obvious vandalism and poorly sourced materials on BLP pages. Neither is the case here. Thus, even if the user was judged to be correct in his reverts (a judgment I would disagree with, but certainly accept), he has violated the 3RR. 128.151.26.110 (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Either way, the guidelines are Bold, Revert, Discuss and WP:BURDEN. In the former case, if you are reverted, it is up to you to open the discussion, and on a Talk page not via edit summaries. If you didn't make it plain that sources already justify the inclusion of contentious material, you shouldn't be surprised at the result. I also detected a lack of neutrality in the language and scope of your edits. Accordingly, I am declining to review my decision, although you're welcome to seek a second opinion. Rodhull  andemu  21:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This IP is editing under 2 IP addresses from the University of Rochester. As he/she is at 4RR and clearly knows the 3RR rule, I'll block both IPs for 31 hours. Page is now protectedDougweller (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)