Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive146

User:RolandR reported by User:Ntbiabt (Result: reporter blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I can't edit his Talk Page - why?

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I can't edit his Talk Page - why?

Comments: Clear violation of 3RR. Tried to bully me, a new user, by pretending to be admin and threatening me on my Talk Page. Also, why can't I use this editor's Talk Page? Ntbiabt (talk) 12:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)I presume this is a complaint against me by User:Ntbiabt. This user has been edit-warring in order to replace English with US variant spellings, including of Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. In so doing, s/he is not only ignoring Wikipedia guidelines, but is also creating a Wikilink to a redirect, rather than to the article itself. Further, I strongly suspect that this is not a new user, but a sockpuppet of User:RT101798, blocked for the same behaviour yesterday. Nor did I pretend to be an admin; I posted a template warning, which I followed up with a polite personal note. RolandR (talk) 12:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, when the title of the article uses the British English spelling of Labour, repeatedly insisting on replacing it with the American English spelling, Labor, in the body of the article, using the argument that the British English spelling is an unnecessary anglicisation, looks pretty disruptive. I see that the edit war that Ntbiabt is reporting is over the same spelling change in the Bolshevik article, Ntbiabt there rationalising his change on the grounds that, since Wikipedia is international it should use the American spelling. Ntbiabt seems to be unaware on the rules and guidelines which govern which spelling system is selected in particular articles.       ←   ZScarpia  13:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * None of which changes the fact RolandR made 3 reverts in less than 25 minutes, and another less than 24 hours before that. Considering the amount of reports he has filed here, he certainly should know better.
 * Obvious violation is obvious. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So Roland can simply self revert and let the disruption and sockpuppetry prevail to avoid breaking 3RR. Brilliant. Everyone a winner.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 13:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I see your point. Whether the article says "labor" or "labour" is such an important issue that we should put aside the 3RR and deal with it immediately. I mean, what's a bright line compared to an extra "u"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently you thought the first sentence was sarcastic. Unfortunately not. The last one was though.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I think it's suspicious that a new user immediately has detailed knowledge of Wikipedia procedures like the 3RR and how to report someone for edit warring. This tends to be a sign of sockpuppetry. PatGallacher (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have self-reverted and restored the incorrect disruptive spelling, in order to avoid 3RR. I suspect that both this editor and the similar edit-warrior yesterday are sockpuppets, and I find it very hard to assume that any of these edits was made in good faith. RolandR (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Roland, you are free to make a report at WP:SPI. If this editor is a sock of User:RT101798, these reverts at Bolshevik show him to be avoiding an AE block, so the checkusers might be willing to look at it. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No need, I'm going to make the report myself. I'm 99% sure RT is someone's bad cop sock, and I don't feel like dealing with this bullshit. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was looking at this as well, and a report isn't even necessary. Please see here.  nableezy  - 17:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, that's just incompetence. Both indef blocked. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Reporter blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

User:John KB reported by User:117Avenue (Result: declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I have tried to initiate conversation on the talk page, and directed the user to it twice, but he has ignored it. 117Avenue (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not a formal 3RR violation since the reverts were spread out over many days, and I can't see my way to blocking in a 1-vs-1 dispute. Since the article appears to have a number of active editors, I advise asking for others to discuss the issue on the talk page.  If others agree with you and John KB continues to revert nonetheless, the case for a block will be much clearer. Looie496 (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring by two anonymous IPs reported by User:Crusio (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported: Two anonymous IPs are edit warring over Michael Kühntopf.


 * Semi-protected for one week, as the simplest solution. Looie496 (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Mrdubbing reported by User:mooncow (Result: warned)
Pages: and

User being reported:

Previous versions reverted to:


 * sample from the Dave Clark Five page: diff
 * sample from the Dave Clark (musician) page: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: created

Comments:

This is not a 3RR or similar violation, as the edit warring is slooow and has taken place over several months (about twelve), but there seems to be a problem with these two pages and the quoting of a birth date for Dave Clark, and it has resulted in a ping-pong of edits which doesn't seem to be helping anyone. User:Mrdubbing, in particular, repeatedly "corrects" 1939 to 1942 without comment and without contributing to the discussion page. A warning was put on his talk page, but the repeated identical edits continue without comment or discussion up to the present (latest: 17 November 2010 on both articles).

I have placed a discussion item on the talk page Talk:The_Dave_Clark_Five. I haven't discussed it directly with User:Mrdubbing or any of the other editors involved, as I have no domain knowledge to contribute and only limited editorial expertise myself. I don't know whether this is best treated as an edit war, or needs some sort of mediation, or just a friendly admin to keep an eye on it and see if the discussion resolves to a concensus or not. Mooncow (talk) 03:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

User:92.238.185.104 reported by User:O Fenian (Result: Blocked 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:

If you look back at the history of the article you will also see constant edit warring from this editor. Their edits have been reverted many times by Catgut, Eraserhead, Andrej N. B. and Glorfindel Goldscheitel, and any requests to discuss changes on the talk page have been ignored. O Fenian (talk) 09:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 20 November
 * 27 November
 * 28 November
 * 28 November
 * 29 November
 * 30 November
 * 30 November
 * 6 December
 * 6 December
 * 7 December
 * 7 December
 * 8 December
 *   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  12:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Chesdovi reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness (Result: 5 days)
Page:

User being reported:

I am filing this report as a violation of the 1rr (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period) present at all articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict:

Arbitration request for clarification shows that violators of this can be reported to this noticeboard:


 * 1st revert: . User Dailycare ads "The consensus view of the international community..." as the first sentence of the article, and removes "At present, based on the result of numerous UN resolutions..." Chesdovi removes that first sentence and re ads the other part:


 * 2nd revert: . I re added "The consensus view of the international community..." as the first sentence of the article and removed the parts about "Arguments by legal experts have been offered for and against the permissibility of the settlements established by Israel in the territories it captured during the 1967 war." and "At present, based on the result of numerous UN resolutions..." . Chesdovi reverts this: he replaces my first sentence, and re adds both "Arguments by legal experts have been offered for and against the permissibility of the settlements established by Israel in the territories it captured during the 1967 war." and "At present, the predominant view of the international community..."

These two reverts happened within 24 hours, he has therefor violated the topic ban.

Chesdovi is aware of the 1rr as he has been notified of it with a link to the rule when he violated it at another time:, there is also a warning message at the talkpage where he participated:, he has also been notified of ARBPIA --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - Blocked 5 days, per User:Tariqabjotu. EdJohnston (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

User:MbdSeattle reported by User:Dayewalker (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

User also asked for assistance here, but has never stopped reverting. User is also probably IP, who jumped in and reverted following the user blanking warnings on his talk page. User also left this tidbit on the article page. Dayewalker (talk) 04:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Result -- 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 04:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

User:24.113.49.10 reported by User:Dayewalker (Result: 31 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

IP claims consensus, even though there is obviously none. Dayewalker (talk) 05:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * - Krakatoa  Katie  05:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

User:24.113.49.10 reported by User:Arxiloxos (Result: already blocked )
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: After I gave this editor a 3RR notice, xe responded with this message at my talk page, and then added the material back for the 5th time

--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * See the above report of the same IP by another editor. Krakatoa  Katie  05:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Flobot222 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Edit warring and POV pushing. No bright-line 3RR yet.

I noticed this through this edit to Jemima Khan. It's a "correct" edit from one viewpoint (it removes information from a lead that is still in the body), however I would see it as unhelpful. Jemima Khan (née Goldsmith) is the daughter of a rich UK family who married a Pakistani cricketer and converted to Islam. This is quite exceptional, and worthy of mention in a lead.

So far that's a difference of opinion, not anything to complain about. I reverted it because my personal opinion is that it's warranted, and also that it had been stably in the lead for a long time. However when I looked at the editor's history, I saw a new editor (September) with an edit history that's narrowly focussed on race issues and has had pretty much every edit challenged for POV. Their talk history is here, because they blank warnings as soon as received.

On this ground, I don't see their removal as a stylistic difference of opinion (if they'd reverted it sincerely, I'd probably have left it), but as part of a broader POV agenda. They've removed it 4 times now, but not within the 24 hour window. As such, I see their overall edit history as problematic.
 * Jemima Khan history

If anyone can explain the Indiana Jones plotline rant on their talkpage (Hitler and Aryans and Persians, Oh my!), I'd be grateful. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

Hi Andy, I would keep the phrasing in question out of the lead. This is well detailled on in the section about her marriage to Khan. What do you feel is so special about going from one belief to another that it would have to be mentioned in the lead? I will look into his other edits and let you know if I perceive bias. I DID like that Flot22 gives comments reasoning his deletion. Chartinael (talk) 11:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As an analogy for the US, imagine if a Kennedy had married a Muslim and converted to Islam. That's the importance of this, for its unusual nature and also (perhaps not quite so much) for the prominence of the family.
 * If you'd made this edit, I'd probably look at your other contributions and see an editor with a broad range of edits and some interest in copyediting. I'd still disagree, but I'd see it as a legit difference of opinion and let it stand. When it's from such a single-focus editor though, I get concerned. I also doubt if you'd have removed it from the infobox. Infoboxes, and especially leads, should really only re-state content that's already discussed further in the main article and if we take an absolutist view that "nothing in the body should be repeated in the lead" it would be empty!
 * Many of the edits here are strictly "correct", in that they delete sections that aren't well sourced. However that's an editing pattern that is correct as a one-off, but when it's repeated across so many edits, and the pieces removed are always to further a particular POV, I see this as problematic. There are also edits like Auroville, where a well-sourced but highly critical sentence was removed (this sentence has been attacked before).
 * Looking at Aryan, we see a pattern of multiple reversions like this with a refusal to engage with other editors or to put the stick down. In particular, qualifying  as   (an edit I'd personally agree with, as it's clearer to the layman, even if slightly tautological) three times in a day:
 * 
 * (trampling an intervening edit in the process)
 * 
 * This just doesn't look like an editor who has time for other opinions, or for collegiate policies. For futher concerns and pointer to more diffs, I suggest looking at their talk: history and seeing the warnings from a broad range of other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Andy, I certainly agree, there seems to be an underlying issue there. Aboutt he Auroville issue, I cannot say much. I didn't read the lemma, only noted on the diff that the idealism of founders is not referenced. This edit is indeed bad . Bad  and I see more bad edits. My feeling is that he is trying to be indo-centric? Is that yours as well? His talk pages is also extremely bad. But hey, so is mine. I basically checked only his reverts especially when they were about etymology. His reverts were mostly correct. Seems like the ongoing dispute between the east and the west as in iran/afghanistan about the historic right to the term aryan. So his reverts were fine but probably based on the totally wrong motivation. Chartinael (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what his POV is, I don't want to know what his POV is, I certainly don't have time to know what his POV is. I certainly can't make head nor tail of that epistle on his talk page. Whatever it is though, I'm sure he's pushing something, and not in a helpful manner. I'm just the dog-catcher here, not a vet. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing some edits: What bias do you think to have recognized? Chartinael (talk) 11:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Edit taking out unsourced section describing a people (Kaul) through physcial attributions.
 * This edit is bad, but it appears he may not know what a cognate is.
 * This edit is good as is this  another good one


 * Flobot222 is also (different editor, overlapping but slightly earlier edit) up at ANI too. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: I've soft blocked the user (autoblock disabled) for another unrelated reason - the name ending in bot. Please also note that the user is allowed to register a new name and start editing again. Therefore, you would have to connect the edits from hereon to a new username, whichever the blocked editor should choose in the future. Regards.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  12:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Please review my inquiry about such block on your Talk page. Chartinael (talk) 12:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Behavior issues of reportee aside, I see zero discussion on the issue before coming here, and the reporter's edit summaries are awfully WP:BITEy. I may have misread the situation, but I don't believe so. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I came to this contribution history late, just on this recent edit. Normally I would have tried to engage them in more discussion, but looking at the talk: history and their immediate wiping without engagement, I didn't see that it would be a fruitful route. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Result -- No action, since the user is currently blocked indef for having a user name which sounds like a bot. If he returns with a new account (which he's entitled to do) anyone who still sees a problem can file a new report. EdJohnston (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Returned as, first edit ws to repeat the Jemima Khan deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Ohconfucius reported by User:Silver seren (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Diff of what article was before user was involved, Diff of what user changed article to.


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I was in the process of sourcing the items on the list in this article, as can be seen from the history. However, at 07:36, December 10, 2010, during the very same minute that I was working with another ref, User:Ohconfucius started removing huge sections of the list on the page. I reverted him and directed him to go discuss this change on the talk page, wherein I made a section. However, he ignored me and reverted me back. He then went on to remove even more of the article, such as the Overview section, the removal shown here. I reverted him back yet again and once more directed him to the talk page. This time, he reverted me without an edit summary. I reverted for a third time, warning in my edit summary that I would take him to this noticeboard if he reverted again without discussion. He did so and here I am.

I would like to note that this article is extremely new, having been started two days ago. The release of the list in a Wikileaks document occurred just five days ago and new secondary sources are being published every hour. I have been working on incorporating these all day, slowly working through the list so everything will be referenced eventually. There was already a discussion on the talk page here in progress about what should be done with the unsourced sections of the list. Ohconfucius could have easily joined in on that discussion instead of starting this edit war. Since he has yet to discuss anything, i'm not sure what else there is to say. I will go notify him of this section. Silver seren C 08:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * User has now responded on the talk page, a full ten minutes later. Silver  seren C 08:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a huge discussion on this already at ANI. The consensus there is that this content does not belong, failing WP:RS, except three editors vehemently disagree. One of them, Silver seren, has made blanket reverts of my sequential edits, now the second dissenter, Meco, has also joined in tag teaming against my efforts. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 11:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The discussion that is being referred to can be found here. However, Ohconfucius is wrong in terms of the concensus in the discussion. If the admin wishes to take the time to read through, I am sure they will see that, in the beginning of the discussion, notability of the article was conflicted, but the later addition of numerous reliable sources by myself and other users clearly dealt with issues of notability. Regardless, that discussion has little to do with Ohconfucius's edit warring and lack of discussion on the talk page of the article until after the fact (and after s/he made sure to revert once again before doing so). User Meco has since reverted him back however, yes. This is not tag teaming, as is stated by Ohconfucius, since I have had no contact in terms of the reversions before Meco did so and I certainly did not tell him to do so. Silver  seren C 11:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to further note that after making his comment above, Ohconfucius went and made this comment in the discussion, again citing some concensus that is not shown in the discussion. Silver  seren C 11:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There are no unsourced items in the article. WP:Primary fully permits the use of primary sources, especially about themselves.  The 2008 Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative List was published in its entirety (though with some location data omitted); it is a document compiled by the DHS working with other federal agencies.  Deletions like this made by OhConfucius amount to (at best) original research.  For a longer response see Talk:Critical_Foreign_Dependencies_Initiative. Wnt (talk) 13:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, speak of the devil... just as I was wondering if #3 was lurking in the wings. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The set of all editors working constructively on an article does not constitute a "tag team", as you've suggested elsewhere. Meco and I came to this article independently, and Silverseren was in fact recruited to this cause by an attempt to censor the article at ANI/Incidents. Wnt (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, there was no tag teaming. ;-) There's this incitement to counter my work to remove inappropriately sourced material... -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that this edit of mine restored material that was unsourced or poorly sourced? I don't know that anyone actually meant to delete this material - if so, why??  I responded to the talk page comment, yes, but following an edit war like this I would have compared the versions from before and after anyway. Wnt (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I should add that I just now spotted a comment by User:Elonka fomenting this behavior by OhConfucius at the end of a previous talk page section, saying that "Any primary sources (for example,) should be removed immediately." I feel strongly that this was an ill-considered suggestion, but it does provide OhConfucius with something of an excuse; the responsibility goes largely to Elonka. Wnt (talk) 13:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ho, ho ho! Gosh, all these personal attacks against me here and elsewhere, least of all this comment and this edit summary insinuating I vandalised the article... The problem as discussed at ANI, was the consensus that the heavy reliance on primary sources is totally unacceptable. Re this, when saying 'unsourced' in my edit summary, I always linked to WP:RS. I'm done here. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I used the neutral term "damage", since I did not track down exactly how this section got deleted in the edit war. Since the section is based on secondary discussions and is not part of the list material you were setting out to delete, I presume the damage was some inadvertent collateral damage of the dispute.  Am I wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wnt (talk • contribs) 14:55, December 10, 2010
 * Hmmm, looks like I was wrong. But why would you remove this saying there aren't reliable sources when I'm citing the government's own National Infrastructure Protection Plan (not via Wikileaks) and two other reliable-looking sources? Wnt (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as an administrator who has been monitoring the Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative article, I do see that Ohconfucius was reverting, but he doesn't appear to have gone over 3RR. It is also worth noting that he was acting to remove unsourced and poorly sourced information from the article. The other editors who were reverting to restore that information have been cautioned, and since Ohconfucius has stopped reverting on the article for now, I do not think any further administrator action is required. --Elonka 15:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Elonka. Marking as no action taken. NW ( Talk ) 16:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

User:90.221.144.212 reported by User:Cresix (Result: already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Diff of what article was before user was involved, Diffof what user changed article to.


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: (note category change is same as previous reverts)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Note also vandalism on same article, removing large portions of the article:  

Also has made several personal attacks.

Same editor, another page (Christian democracy): Previous version reverted to: Diff of what article was before user was involved, Diffof what user changed article to.


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Cresix (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I'm not sure I agree, I don't see the IP editing much more disruptively than anyone else. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

User:209.36.57.10 reported by User:Wee Curry Monster (Result:48 hours)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I draw attention to the edit summary of the final revert.

Then you know the headache you're in for. Change it to comply with NPOV or we'll edit war till both articles get locked and go back to arbitration. Your choice mate.

This IP address is a sock of User:Alex79818 of that I'm certain, I will be filing a sock puppet report as well. This editor has previously disrupted Falklands articles with WP:TE. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No 3RR breach but the IP has made it abundantly clear that he or she will continue reverting, so a block has been enacted to prevent an immediate continuation of the edit war. Mkativerata (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Editor is now evading his block.  as .  Suggest semi-protection. Pfainuk talk 22:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Both IPs now blocked for 48 hours. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

User:209.36.57.248 reported by User:Wee Curry Monster (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

See Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring‎ and and  Block evasion, may need an IP range block. Past experience would indicate this guy is unlikely to give up. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked - see above. I'm reluctant to impose semi-protection on such prominent articles but if it continues we might not have a choice. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Ryulong reported by User:Jpatokal (Result: both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, promptly deleted by user

Lengthy discussion at talk page:

Comments:

Pmanderson is also bordering on 3RR, and I probably should have resisted the temptation to do my one revert as well. However, as a former admin he really should know better, and there's a sequence of previous RFAs and RFCs over very similar behavior.


 * (meaning Ryulong and Pmanderson). Ryulong for a four days for like a gajillion reverts without even an attempt at compromise. However, I've also blocked Pmanderson for 12 hours for some WP:POINTy edits and officially for breaking 3RR (there were more than three reverts).


 * I've also asked Dragonflysixtyseven to consider unprotection. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * With both users blocked, perhaps the guideline article should be unprotected. --RegentsPark (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This seems fairly straightforward. Both Ryulong and Pmanderson broke the 3RR rule in their edit warring with each other. It seems like an open and shut case to me. Silver  seren C 04:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's a broken 3RR rule. Both editors (Ryulong and Pmanderson) should know better.  Good block. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 04:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note the blocking admin has sought community review of the blocks here. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Bb5757 reported by User:Diannaa (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

This user's sole purpose for visiting Wikipedia seems to be to remove sourced content on the Arora article, and replace it with other unsourced content. They were blocked for this activity on December 7 and resumed immediately upon being unblocked. I am involved as I did extensive copy edits on the article a while ago. Here are the user's edits since their last block:


 * December 8 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arora&diff=401245968&oldid=401203013
 * December 10 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arora&diff=401636749&oldid=401270304
 * December 11 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arora&diff=prev&oldid=401739827

Comments:

The user has never made a talk page or user talk page edit. Thanks. -- Diannaa (Talk) 07:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've notified him/her about not using any edit summaries here. It is quite common for some newcomers to miss out on edit summaries. Minima c  (talk ) 11:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I am going to post this on the WP:AIV board since my post here did not get an admin response. -- Diannaa (Talk) 17:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Result -- Blocked 48 hours by User:Edgar181. A much longer block of Bb5757 should be considered if this behavior continues. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

User:76.67.16.43 reported by User:Minnecologies (Result: Semiprotected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * Version preceding issue


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:, etc.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: in article talk page

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

Comments:

The content which this particular IP is so intent on editing has been a very contentious issue in the past. Essentially, the lead of the article has been a result of multiple discussions (the most specific to this particular issue are here and here) and a mediation. Other editors and myself have reverted the IP's edits multiple times with a short reasoning in the edit summary, until I started the discussion linked above. I know that after the first revert it should have been handled differently by starting a discussion immediately in the talkpage, but in reality it seems like at least once a week an editor (majority of which are anonymous IPs) comes by to change this very same wording in the lead. Most of the time the revert stays and the IP ceases editing, but not in this case. No success (so far) at reasoning. Minnecologies t,c 20:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Result -- Article semiprotected. The IP has broken 3RR today. I believe this is an example of sockpuppetry but the semi should be enough of a response for now. EdJohnston (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Delinquent1904 reported by User:BrendanFrye (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:

User continues to revert on this page as well as on the GSP page. He's continuosly inserting the same material which goes against how mma articles are formatted and without proper sourcing. I warned him after his second set of edits to both pages and he has hit the fourth edit on jake shields and third edit (since reverted by another editor) on the GSP page. He has been reverted on both pages by editors other than myself. BrendanFrye (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * - Krakatoa  Katie  09:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Illegal Operation reported by User:MbdSeattle (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Version after admin EdJohnston semi-protected page


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 





Comments:


 * Result -- Both parties warned. The listed reverts span a period of more than 24 hours, so they don't violate WP:3RR. Both MbdSeattle and Illegal Operation are in trouble if they continue to revert contested material (that has previously been the subject of warring) without getting consensus first. I have already warned Illegal Operation about continuing to remove the 'Sales and market share' section unless he has obtained a consensus for doing so on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Please, EdJohnston, look at the big picture here. This is a group warring campaign by CaptainStack, Intelati, Illegal Operation, and others.

Recently, CaptainStack did a bunch of edits and reverts, just shy of 3RR. Then, Illegal Operation stepped in and did a number of reverts, just shy of 3RR, and now CaptainStack has sent the call out to Intelati to step in. Below is the diff of that call.

CaptainStack describes MbdSeattle as Stirring Up Trouble to rally Intelati — Preceding unsigned comment added by MbdSeattle (talk • contribs) 21:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

User:John KB reported by User:117Avenue (Result: no violation )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

I have tried to initiate conversation on the talk page, and directed the user to it three times, but he has ignored it. 117Avenue (talk) 07:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * - Krakatoa  Katie  09:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Do I need to initiate an edit war to get attention here? 117Avenue (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

User:98.122.103.183 reported by User:Daedalus969 (Result: 55h, semi)
Page:

Page: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Page 2:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: - 98.122.69.172
 * 2nd revert: - 98.122.69.172
 * 3rd revert: - 98.122.103.183
 * 4th revert: - 98.122.103.183

The two IPs are listed in case a range block is needed, as they are clearly the same person.— Dæ <font color="Blue">dαlus + <font color="Green">Contribs 11:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Comments:


 * Result -- IP blocked 55 hours by User:Timotheus Canens. Both articles semiprotected by User:Dougweller. EdJohnston (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

User:AussieLegend reported by User:Danjel (Result: 24 hours for both)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newcastle_High_School_%28Australia%29&diff=402125397&oldid=402120279
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newcastle_High_School_(Australia)&diff=402130057&oldid=402129551
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newcastle_High_School_(Australia)&diff=402136792&oldid=402136611
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newcastle_High_School_(Australia)&diff=402138509&oldid=402138088

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AussieLegend&diff=402139925&oldid=402139310

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AussieLegend#Newcastle_High_School

Comments:

I have suggested that AussieLegend put the question in discussion over at WP:EiA, which he has seemed reluctant to do (repeated requests visible in page history []. I had to start the discussion for him at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Education_in_Australia because he simply wouldn't come over (he only joined in after the 3RR warning).

He's also removed my warning [], which, of course, he's entitled to do. But it seems that he hasn't taken the point that he was edit warring by putting forward his controversial additions without discussing.

I've stopped, and am waiting for input from other participants at WP:EiA -Danjel (talk) 13:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Also [], not on the same article, but related to the above. I worry that he's being deliberately problematic here. -Danjel (talk) 14:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * - This was actually a good faith restoration of content deleted by an editor who has been changing infoboxes without any real consensus to do so. It was followed by this removal of incorrect information that the same editor had inexplicably included in the article and this fix of an incorrect link that had also been included.
 * - This was a valid reversion of vandalism and is excepted from 3RR. Danjel claimed the translation of the motto was an "interpretation" so I provided a citation, which he deleted without valid reason for removal.
 * - This was again a valid reversion of the same vandalism.
 * The 3RR warning was made over an hour after I reverted the vandalism at Newcastle High School (Australia) and I have raised this matter at WP:ANI. It was only after that conversation was started that I discovered this one, which confirms to me that Danjel is being disruptive to make a point. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This conversation is time-stamped eight minutes before your WP:AN/I report. I'm willing to assume good faith that each of you were seeking help from administrators and went to different venues. AussieLegend, I would strongly suggest assuming that Danjel is acting in good faith in his edits; as was stated at AN/I, "even misguided attempts to improve the wiki are not treated as vandalism," and Danjel stated in several venues (edit summary and your user talk) his basis for making the edits to improve the encyclopedia. —C.Fred (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit slow on the keyboard these days and it took me a while to get the diffs that I've included at the ANI discussion. I wasn't aware of this report until after I'd finished there. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) See also Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, a thread AussieLegend started where he acknowledged "I've stupidly been dragged into an edit-war over something extremely trivial and thought I should probably explain myself here, after realising and stepping back." Since blocks are supposed to be preventative and not punitive, I don't think any action is necessary unless he commits any further violations of 3RR after that point. —C.Fred (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * AussieLegend: I don't have time to review everything here, so I will leave it to others to discuss, but calling an edit vandalism does not automatically make it so. Frank  &#124;  talk  14:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Consensus has been reached on using Template:Infobox school, even if AussieLegend disagrees. The discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Education_in_Australia.


 * (1) There was some incorrect information in the article that I edited in. I've admitted culpability for this and thanked Aussielegend for his diligence [].


 * (2) Good faith edits and requests asking an editor to discuss a potentially controversial issue are not vandalism.


 * (3) Aussielegend started the discussion at WP:ANI without notifying me. It wasn't until Frank informed me at User_talk:Danjel that I became aware of that discussion. Frank also pointed this out at WP:ANI. Also of note, I made my edit informing Aussielegend that I had taken the issue here at 13:48 at []. He made his post at WP:ANI at 14:00 a full 12 minutes after I informed him.


 * (4) The reason why I undid his revert after an hour was because I thought that discussion would resolve the situation and have Aussielegend take the issue to WP:EiA where it could be discussed. That didn't happen.


 * (5) I'm not being "disruptive to make a point". -Danjel (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * @Frank - My concern was that Danjel deliberately and without explanation twice removed a citation that had been added specifically to support a translation that he disputed, and which he kept calling an "interpretation" despite explanations and after I had pointed him to online references supporting the translation. That sort of action seemed vandalistic and WP:POINTy to me.


 * @Danjel - Please show where this consensus has been agreed to. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You still haven't found the word "might" in that Latin phrase, have you? It's because it's not there. It's because you're interpreting the phrase. That's the source of the controversy that I repeatedly invited you to either explain in a new section or discuss out at WP:EiA


 * As for consensus, I agree, obviously.
 * Moondyne agrees [].
 * Orderinchaos neutral with qualified support [].
 * Even you (were) working with us on it until you got your hackles up. [].
 * Noone, besides you, just now, has been shouting that it shouldn't be done. THAT seems pointy. -Danjel (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Quite a deal of discussion has gone on since those comments were made. Since Orderinchaos made his post, very early in the discussion, a lot has been said. There certainly has been no consensus, just a very informal, tentative heading towards the change that you've taken to be consensus. You asked whether you could get bak on with changing articles on 11 December. Moondyne suggested waiting 24 hours, and my response was that we needed more discussion. Moondyne has since said he thinks my blank is fine, but that's not WP:CONSENSUS. in any case, you're changing artiucles without regard to my blank, doing it according to your own suggestions. This is why we are at this point. You are making assumptions, as you did when you assumed that the translation of Remis Velisque is only an interpretation and OR. You're ignoring what you don't want to hear and when it's actually proven, you try to bury it. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right, Moondyne suggested waiting for 24 hours on Dec. 11, that was 3 days ago. I asked again today if we could move on, and he and I agreed to move on. You didn't, because you're unhappy that we're using my blank instead of your's (mine's more compact than your's, seriously, whats the big deal in the short term?)? We're not at the point where we're using the blank, yet. Is this why you're so upset?


 * Remis is OAR, Velis is SAIL. Adding anything else to that is interpreting the translation and is WP:OR. There is no word "might" in there. If it's a saying, fantastic, but NO OTHER AUSTRALIAN SCHOOL ADDS THIS LAYER OF INTERPRETATION. -Danjel (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)




 * Further comments about specific points of the complaint:
 * "'I have suggested that AussieLegend put the question in discussion over at WP:EiA]'" - What question? Whether or not commas should be included as is standard practice in Australia and as is supported by [[MOS:NUM?
 * "'repeated requests visible in page history'" - no questions exist in the page history.
 * "'putting forward his controversial additions without discussing'" - The commas and the translation existed before Danjel edited the article. He removed them. I simply restored them, as they were deleted without explanation. He also removed the comma from Tomaree High School. Again I simply restored it. I didn't actually add anything that wasn't in the articles before he removed them and inclusion of commas and a motto is certainly not controversial. --15:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There were two questions that were being raised from our exchange of edits and discussion. (1) whether to use n,nnn (as you support) or nnnn (as I support); and (2) whether to add interpretation to mottos (which you support and I oppose).


 * The requests that you take the above two issues to WP:EIA, for example:
 * 13:08, 13 December 2010 Danjel (talk | contribs) (4,663 bytes) (Undid revision 402136792 by AussieLegend (talk) - Not Vandalism.As stated in last edit, GAIN CONSENSUS FIRST. Discussion at WP:EiA)
 * 12:55, 13 December 2010 Danjel (talk | contribs) (4,663 bytes) (Returning to old version - By all means disagree, but discuss and gain consensus (have started it for you at WP:EIA first.)
 * ...and all through your talk page.


 * You restored something that was inconsistent with all of the rest of the articles on Australian schools. There is no article that adds a layer of interpretation. None at all (at least that I can find, and I've gone through a couple of hundred over the past week). Therefore, expecting you to justify in discussion why it's there is not unreasonable. This is discussion that should be happening at WP:EIA.


 * It's pretty hard to assume that you're going to contribute to reasonable discussion on this issue and accept the views of anyone else but yourself. If I make that edit again, until the discussion concludes one way or the other, will you go ahead and revert again or will you leave it be? -Danjel (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Here you've demonstrated the point that I made above. You simply removed a citation that supported the translation that you challenged, demanding not asking, that I get another opinion when one was not needed because it was cited. To your question, ie "If I make that edit again, until the discussion concludes one way or the other, will you go ahead and revert again", the content is cited and you should not remove the citation. It's as simple as that. You've already said above "I've stopped, and am waiting for input from other participants at WP:EiA". You should stand by that. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

User:173.22.180.181 reported by User:Doniago (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: IP has disregarded consensus at article Talk page, continuing to add OR and unneeded material despite 3RR and NOR notifications.

Doniago (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

User:194.80.246.1 reported by User:O Fenian (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Comments:

Editor is edit warring across multiple articles against multiple editors. O Fenian (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree - editor is edit warring across multiple articles. --HighKing (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Vivvt reported by User:Sri&3kumar (Result: Reporter socking)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The edit war started on 12th and continued through 13th. See also and User:Vivvt seems to be owning the article. He seems upset about including the religious identity of the subject. Sri&amp;3kumar (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note, the reporter is part of a sockfarm awaiting clearance at SPI. A related discussion is on at SPI currently - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  19:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Vivvt and Trialbailiff were initially ‎blocked for 24 hours. Vivvt has subsequently bee unblocked as Trialbailiff and Sri&3kumar were both part of one sockfarm, Sockpuppet investigations/Shinas. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 20:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Yopie reported by User:Nmate (Result: not blocked, another user blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 17:21, 10 December 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 3 edits by Nowina20 (talk); Edit was in German, not in English. (TW)")
 * 2nd revert: 19:41, 11 December 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 2 edits by Nowina20 (talk); Unsourced POV, mainly NN trivia. (TW)")
 * 3rd revert: 00:44, 12 December 2010 (edit summary: "links restored, tag as section is unsourced")
 * 4th revert: 23:23, 12 December 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Nowina20 (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Yobot. (TW)")
 * 5th revert: 15:49, 13 December 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Nowina20 (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Yopie. (TW)")

familiarity with the edit warring policy : 

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

Comments:

Formally, there is no any violation of 3RR there, however, there is neither any discussion content going on on talk, while the user made 5 reverts on the article. It is true that at least two person need for any edit warring but his opponent in an edit war over content ,User:Nowina20, is apperantly new to Wikipedia. Interesting to note that the last two reverts of him were with an edit summary of "identified as vandalism" ,which were false abusive edit summaries and abuse of an automated tool, twinkle if user Nowina20 vandalised nothing there.

Last time Yopie was blocked for having made 7 reverts on one another article within a time frame ,which was longer than 24 hours, without having violated a 3RR ,technically, while he was unwilling to engage in discussion content.  Instead he requested the article to be edit protected on the ground that it needs to prevent from vandalistic attacks but the administrator disagreed with him on that and it leaded his block for a non techically violation of 3RR then.  --Nmate (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Nowina20 for making 0 talk space contributions to resolve. Reporter admonished on improper use of Twinkle rollback tool and failing to discuss save a non-friendly 3RR message. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC) (er, nevermind that). Yopie warned. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

User:92.238.185.104 reported by User:O Fenian (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Under discussion at Talk:Austrians

Comments:

The IP editor is obviously editing as also, and has recently been blocked for edit warring for making virutally identical edits to the same article.

<S>The first revert is only a partial revert. However if the prior part of the edit (this) is included it becomes a full revert. So it is one partial revert (and the word "excluded" added in the partial revert has been described as "absurd statement" when it was "excluding", so obviously that still applies)and three full reverts in under 24 hours, or four full reverts in 25 hours, which for an editor already blocked for edit warring for the same change on the same article is equally unacceptable. O Fenian (talk) 10:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)</S>


 * The addition of a 5th revert makes the above comments largely academic now. O Fenian (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yesterday when I was online i noticed the IP was reverting O fenian everywhere he editted, by looks of things this is resolved for now but the IP only has a 24 hr block so we should keep our eyes peeled if he returns to edit warring-- Lerd the nerd wiki defender  10:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a different IP, and a different editor. O Fenian (talk) 10:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * IP hard blocked for a week so if GeordieNUFC is the same person, he won't be able to edit through the block on the IP. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Mghori reported by User:Deepak D'Souza (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Although not a living person, the stuff of Mghori's edit is very libelous. Given that the subject is currently in the spotlight, Mghoris actions should not be overlooked. User has edit-warred before and has recieved a warning.

--Deepak D'Souza (talk) 11:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry that nobody's seen to this in so long, but the respondent hasn't edited in over five hours, so a block now would be punitive, not preventative. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Frankly, not punishing him is as good as encouraging him. He has a history of edit warring and he is still contnuing it on another page. I don't know what the definiition of stale is. I have seen 3RR vios being punished after 3 days in the past. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 04:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Johnsy88 reported by User:Snowded (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:

Comments:

The above diff is only a part of the attempt to resolve this one. The term "left wing" was inserted in this article and the insertion was opposed editors splitting evenly on it; WP:BRD was however ignored. The matter went to the RS notice board and the clear majority determined that the there was not enough evidence to support the insertion (please note that the leader of the leading British Right Wing party is a supporter of the UAF). The change was made yesterday and again today and in each case the editor has reverted.

The editor concerned already has a block record. A review of the editors talk page shows that we are dealing with someone fairly naive who also finds it difficult to articulate his/her position or understand arguments presented to them. However this is clear disruption. --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  12:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: The assertion that there was any consensus to delete a number of RS sources confirming the use of the mild term "left wing" is inapt here.  The term "clear majority" is also inapt.  Snowded's edit summaries leave a boit to be desired, including an odd interpretation of the RSN "vote" which does not seem to agree with the claim made here.  Give them each a trout.  Past history has been that the onus is on the person removing a tag repeatedly. I count 7 !votes saying The Times is RS for the claim, and 4 opposing (mainly on the basis that The Times is biassed).  YMMV. Collect (talk) 12:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is a mess and agree that Snowded is not being completely open here. It looks to me that he really believes he is right but he has cherry picked certain comments while leaving others out over a content dispute that spans an article talk page and at least two noticeboards. I'm not saying that there is consensus for the edit that Johnsy88 reverted to but there is not consensus against it as Snowded asserts. And both have provided policy and guideline based arguments. I would be curious to see if someone wants to compile how many times Snowded has reverted the change over the last year.Cptnono (talk) 12:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The reviewing admin may want to look at the RS discussion. No one has disputed that the Times is a RS and or claimed that its news reporting is biased.  The question has been one of weight (one passing reference not repeating in many other reports from the same newspaper).  There are five editors who on grounds of weight think that "left wing" should not have been inserted and 2/3 who think otherwise.  Collect & Cptnono have both been asserting that this is not the case for some time and Johnsy88 is a convenient if naive edit warrior for their POV.  The insertion has been made multiple times over the last year by IPs and reverted and myself and other editors.  That however is beside the point four reverts in 24 hours is unacceptable.   --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  13:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment This 3RR has come out of a failure of dispute resolution. Of the outside editors who contributed at the RS noticeboard (I was one), 5 were clear that the text as was (i.e. a first sentence descriptor of the topic) was inappropriate with the sourcing given, one unsure and one for on the grounds that "when are convenient labels ever supported by reasoned in-depth analysis?". Collect is an involved editor who has consistently misrepresented the dispute on the page as being about the Times's RS status. It is that the Times sourcing is not substantial enough for the first sentence description, particularly as there are other RS sources describing UAF as non-partisan and having cross-party support, and the Times single sentence reference is the only mention in any genuine quality news outlet out of hundreds of articles (and the only one out of the Times' 50 articles on the group). That the sourcing failed because of weight concerns was also a clear finding of the outside editors at RSN. A second more troubling issue is that the insertion of this material has been disputed. However, a group of editors (Johnsy88 has rather taken one for the team here) has been resolutely ignoring the BRD cycle, refusing to discuss the contradictory RS (constantly asking for it as if it's never been presented), and proposing some really silly sourcing on the way in trying to keep the material in. They have most of them made reference to their dislike of how some right wing groups are labelled on wikipedia; this seems to be a motivating factor (in effect - so long as such labels are allowed, they are going to insist on this one). Like Snowded, I'd rather like some admins to look at what's going on.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Involved"? Not. I noted that reliable sources used a moderate term, and so indicated.  I also noted placed the issue as to whether the sources are reliable on the RSN noticeboard, as is proper.  More than that, I have zero involvement at all. As for any claim that I have "consisistently misrepresented" anything, it is quite clear that the "misrepresentation" is about claiming the degree of my involvements, which is minimal.   I do aver, moreover, that I find the use of "extreme", "radical" etc. as an adjective to be less than utile, while simple moderate claims of "left wing" or "right wing" may be reasonable.  Collect (talk) 14:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note Collect has been involved on the talkpage prior to requests for outside comment, as the proposer of a section on RSN, and at the NPOV noticeboard (posted on the talk page here, all on the same issue. That's hardly zero. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh? My very first post on the article talk page as far as I can tell was 9 December (five days ago) - immediately after I made my very first edit to the article.  Upon the claims on the talk page that The Times was not RS, I posted on the RSN page. As per normal procedures on WP. Collect (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * None of that contradicts you being involved; it also emphasises how you've been mischaracterising the dispute. No one disputed the Times as RS. How about waiting for some admins to comment? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And I believe you have misrepresented it but 3/rr is 3/rr as Snowded points to.And the closing admin should also look at the NPOV noticeboard and the multiple talk page discussions if Snowded is requesting that some stuff is looked at. This includes the newest one where Johnsy has made some clear reasoning that you and Snowded have chosen to ignore. The long drawn out edit war that Snowded may have participated in is a little harder to see but it looks like it might be there. I do think it was inappropriate to make any change when consensus was not there yet even though you said it was. Neither party is innocent here. I do think that I have made at least 2 reverts on it myself over the last couple of weeks.Cptnono (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There has been a long term attempt to say that the EDL is not a right wing group (despite the fact that every British Broadsheet newspaper labels it as such) and that the multi-party UAF is a left wing group. This is also the position taken by the leader of the British Fascist Party.  For some time that campaign has been conducted by a series of IPs and I and other editors have been involved in dealing with it.  The edit history of the articles shows this.  We now have a more concerted attempt by a small group of editors.  VsevolodKrolikov is correct to point to the refusal of that group to respect the BRD cycle.   Collect and Cptnono are too experienced to break 3rr (hence my comment on the naivete of Johnsy88).  If a reviewing admin wants to look at the whole thing and/or take this to ANI I have no objections.  --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  13:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The guy's a newbie. Can this 3RR be scaled back and turned into a positive learning experience for the guy?  How about some polite talk on his user page before jumping into 3RR.  I left a few positive comments.  I say we drop this 3RR matter and try the friendly approach first. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggested to him that s/he self-revert to show good faith and understanding.  But if  you have a look at his response to the last block s/he had I do wonder if s/he really understands what is going on. This is a second offense so I am less sure the newbie label applies.  Why don't you try suggesting a self-revert to  demonstrate understanding of the 3rr rule?  --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  14:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Johnsy88, please perform a self-revert. Do that and I'll bet Snowded retracts his 3RR action.  Further, use Talk to achieve consensus, then your edit is more likely to be accepted by the community.  --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Although Johnsy88 has had an awful lot of warning about this kind of behaviour, and is not that new, I agree that he seems to struggle somewhat with wikipedia processes and procedures (his complaint about Snowded being an example), and a self-revert would probably be more effective than another block in terms of the long-term prevention of re-occurrences. That said, this does seem like a good opportunity for asking admins to take a look at the whole dispute. When we've had soft-porn tabloids, stand-up comedians and random websites carrying racist material suggested as sources for labelling, while clear RS have been ignored that demonstrate the disputed nature of the material concerned, something's clearly wrong.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This "newbie" has already been blocked twice for edit-warring (and more than 24 hours in each case) so is well aware of 3RR and no special consideration should be given. TFD (talk) 15:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have not had time to fully read this whole forum and wont have a chance until later in the week due to work. can someone sum up exactly what they would like me to revert and the reason why. thanks Johnsy88 (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is a violation of the 3RR, but it would be unfair to single out a particular editor for a block when three or four editors are all guilty of edit warring. Hopefully this will be an opportunity for you to all discuss things and cut out the reverting. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

User:BuckeyeDave reported by User:Addihockey10 (Result: 24 hrs, another user blocked also )
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:


 * also blocked 24 hours. - Krakatoa  Katie  00:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

User:MFIreland reported by User:Wee Curry Monster (Result: Declined)
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: Acknowledged here with a denial over the number of reverts, 2nd warning  (I acknowledge this was informal btw)  Third Warning  ref WP:BRD

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

Comments:

I would urge any admin to try a warning first as this is a relatively new editor, though they have had more than fair warning and we have tried to engage on the talk page. Sadly I do note they've been warned before so they must be aware of policy. This editor also generated a rather strange SPI Check request Sockpuppet investigations/Pfainuk but is continuing based on rather odd criteria see. Really not sure what is going on here but something is definitely odd. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I count three, possibly four, reverts, but over almost 72 hours, not the required 24 for 3RR. Also, there seems to be a multi-party edit war going on. I suggest you all sit down and talk about it. Full protection might be a good idea. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I had marked this as no violation also, but HJ beat me to the save key. :-) The warning is your job to place before filing a report here. You do that on the user talk page. The article talk page discussion skirts around the whole 3RR policy - no link to WP:3RR, no mention of the consequences, nada. I've placed uw-3rr on his user talk page. Even so, these edits and reverts have occurred over the last 36+ hours, and even then there haven't been four reverts - just three. Keep your heads cool and your keyboards cooler, and continue to encourage discussion with everyone. Re-report here if the problem escalates. :-) Krakatoa  Katie  01:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

User:OliviaWatkins reported by User:Barts1a (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported: {{userlinks|OliviaWatkins}

Previous version reverted to: link


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Comments: I only became aware of this edit war on the 3rd revert. Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints/constructive criticism? Merry Christmas to all! 00:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Additional: The user sent me this message which suggests they knew they were edit warring by asking me to undo the change. Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints/constructive criticism? Merry Christmas to all! 00:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Danjel reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Less than two days ago Danjel and I got involved in a WP:LAME edit war at Newcastle High School (Australia). He reported me here (the discussion is so recent it's still on the page) and we were both blocked for 24 hours. He has apparently decided to start edit warring again, removing the same citation that resulted in our block, only 20 hours after being released and 9 hours after he had started editing again. While this is not a 3RR breach, it seems that he hasn't learned from his block, which is reinforced by his comments at the blocking admin's talk page. For the record, I don't intend editing the page even if the citation is removed again and, while it's not directly related to this report, he appears to be trying to force his deletion of the citation to remain as immediately after removing the citation he requested protection of the page. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

The suggestion was put at User_talk:Danjel by User:HJ Mitchell in his decline of my unblock request [] that I request full protection and ask for a 3rd opinion. I put forward the most neutral position, ie, without the additional text that AussieLegend insisted upon, asked for protection of the most neutral position, and asked for a 3rd opinion.

Whether purposeful or not, his meatpuppet (possible?) User:Bidgee came in and undid the edit [] in less than 30 minutes (It's clear from AussieLegend's talk page that they're acquaintances), in spite of the note on the change indicating that I had referred the issue to WP:RFP and WP:3O. There was no reply, on Bidgee's part, to the now lengthy discussion on the Article's talk page.

AussieLegend is gaming the system by posting here. He has continuously ignored compromise offers (that I made from the very beginning), again and again and again at Talk:Newcastle_High_School_(Australia) where I have tried for a very long time under very trying conditions to be as civil as possible with an editor who makes WP:AGF a chore. -Danjel (talk) 13:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

cf, again, no notification on my talk page, and an attempt to sway the decision at WP:RFP. -Danjel (talk) 13:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What you should have done was requested page protection and 3O without removing the citation again. You hinted at editing the page in the last discussion, but I didn't think you would be so silly as to do so so soon after your block. Your meatpuppet allegation is highly offensive and displays bad faith. Bidgee and I only know each other through our involvement with WP:AUSTRALIA and more than likely his reversion of your removal of the citation because he had watchlisted the page of an Australian article after the edit war. As for your compromises, they have been along the lines of "No, we should do it this way" with no compromise in your position. And please, don't complain about a lack of notification. You didn't warn me after you reported me and you didn't require a 3RR notice because you were obviously aware of the requirement not to edit war having just come off a block. In my experience people are rarely warned after they've been reported. In any case, you discovered the report only 19 minutes after it was made and have had your chance to comment, so all is not lost. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it's not what I should have done, it's what you wanted me to do.


 * You mean my compromise offers like this:


 * Can you make a section for it? []
 * I suggested you make a new section for it. This is a good compromise, no? []
 * It won't be lost if you commit to making a section for it? :) []
 * The compromise I suggested above was to put a section in the article on the motto, like there is with the motto virile agitur, just like there is with Knox Grammar School. Fort Street High School also puts further information on the school's motto into the article (although not into a separate section). []


 * You replied once to my compromise after the second time I posted my compromise [] to say that you didn't want to commit the time to making a new section. I think you do have time, but no matter. This is what you said:
 * "A section can be made for it, but I don't have time right now so it's best left in the infobox, where it's been for some time, until somebody has a chance to do so. Otherwise, it will be lost."


 * Oh, thanks for the notification, even if it was late. I'll accept your apology that it was just an oversight on your part. Lucky I was watching this page after yesterday, huh? -Danjel (talk) 13:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no point to continuing an exchange with you, AussieLegend. All of this smacks of gaming the system to ensure that your preferred edit stays in spite of a request for protection and a request for a third opinion. I refuse to participate in that, so I'll respond if anyone else has a comment or a question. -Danjel (talk) 14:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you need to step back and look at your own edits especially since administrators find need to comment about this on your talk page. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WOW! I do a few edits and went to bed and all the while I'm being accused of a meatpupperty, Danjel take a good hard look at your edits which are full of your own POV, bad faith and ownership. I suggest you strike out your false accusations which you have no grounds to make. Bidgee (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * by . Please guys, sort this out on the talk page. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

User:195.145.76.50 reported by User:Stephenb (Result: semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (by Lerdthenerd (talk - neither of us have been doing the reverting at all!)

Comments:

I don't know what else to do except report this long-running edit war here! It seems to have been going on for over a month, pointlessly changing back and forth, involving more than just the anon IP reported in this report. User:212.211.156.249 has been reverting a lot too, then (recently) User:93.182.134.65 and others, just see the history of the article! Stephenb (Talk) 17:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Semi, as the only people involved in the edit warring appear to be a couple IPs, at least one of them changes regularly, and the loss of productive anonymous edits is small in this case. There is a good chance that at least one of these editors is affiliated with one of these companies - I recommend seeing if the external links need to be pruned and a discussion of the value to the article in putting either of those pictures right up top. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Clearly kefir reported by User:Akane700 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: He/She does a chat irrelevant to Wikipedia. He/she is blocked in Japanese Wikipedia.--Akane700 (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

In WPJP Akane700 is noticed　in many times on his/her over-agressive atittude and he/she have'nt change action.To my disappointment,he/she extend vandal-field even ENWP--Clearly kefir (talk) 06:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This reported by User:Akane700 is corrupt.those my editing is object to communication for ENWP contents. as to be blamed is User:Akane700 --Clearly kefir (talk) 06:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Robintetley reported by User:Off2riorob (Result: 24 hours)
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:

Comments:


 * With no reverts in the last 16 minutes I'm going to exercise some lenience and not block unless there is a further revert. This very swift edit war might have come to an end. Another editor has also broken 3RR but again I'm going to exercise some lenience because it was the reversion of inappropriate perjorative material. But I'll leave a note on both editors' pages. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No reverts for the last 16 mins, woopee do. I have walked away from this users additions last night leaving in very attacking content and although better today its the same poor cited to forum posts on the bands website, the lack of action reminds me that is takes a while to waste your time filling in a report about such users who don't stop re-adding such content, at least a dozen times, and that it is perhaps better to just leave it in and take it off your watch-list if this is the response and support you can expect from Administrators. Off2riorob (talk) 00:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But if he leaves it alone (it's now 31 minutes) why block? There's no point. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * @ Mkativerata ... user hasn't done anything since his last revert. Maybe he's watching some tv. Who knows?! 3rr is an electric fence and he couldn't have had more warning. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 00:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reversed the block because it had already been decided. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was actually looking at it before you posted. That's pretty disruptive behaviour btw, but your call. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 00:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If he reverts again, I'll be the first to block. Blocking was certainly open here, but I wanted to give the user another chance, with a proper non-templated and comprehensive warning. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * - What awful administration from User:Mkativerata, not only do you make a bad decision you wheel war when someone makes a decent one, what a joke, at least I didn't support you at your RFA and you are open to recall so carry on. Off2riorob (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Lsorin reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: declined then 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Problematic edit:

Also at History of the jet engine,

Important background is at Coandă-1910 (See Talk:)

This is horribly complex and has gone on for months. It is a very technical issue on aviation history, centred on Coandă-1910 and the claimed invention of a Romanian jet engined aircraft in 1910, by Henri Coandă (mainstream thought is that the jet engine arose 30 years later, by Whittle and Ohain). The aircraft is real, but there is no agreement as to what it actually was or achieved. It is widely held that Coandă simply lied years later and made exaggerated claims, after such engines had become commonplace.

There are two main technical questions:
 * Was this a "jet engine"? (Which hinges on what precisely is a jet engine)
 * Did it fly? Or was Coandă merely embroidering

The first of these depends on whether we take "jet engine" broadly or narrowly, to mean either "anything propelled by a squirt" (which includes squid and pop pop boats) or whether we narrow this to "engines resembling those we commonly know as jet engines", i.e. gas turbines. Motorjet is an intermediate step here, with a significant Italian aircraft in the 1930s. However the crux for that would seem to be the injection and combustion of fuel as a requirement (the motorjet does at least do that) and there is no evidence that Coandă's did. This lack of fuel is largely accepted by the pro-Coandă party, who would prefer to change the definition of jet engine instead.

The Coandă-1910 article has been hugely problematic, but some fine editing work and coolness under extreme provocation (forget the barnstars, I think a Nobel Peace Prize to user:Binksternet for this one!) has produced an article that, on a good day, is very likely now the best English-language description of the aircraft available.

The remaining problem is one editor, user:Lsorin who continues to push the "1910 jet engine" claim regardless. There is room for disagreement between editors, but not when it becomes this disruptive. Disruption is quicker and easier to write than refutation - fending off this same repeated claim, over and over, has swallowed the time and effort of a couple of highly regarded editors who ought to be free for something more useful.

For this particular edit, it's overspill into jet engine. The contentious edit does two things: it re-inserts the full Coandă claim that it was both a jet engine, and that it flew. Secondly it did this in a way as to have the existing text, "jet engines [...] first compressed air, which was then mixed with fuel and burned for jet thrust." followed by, "The earliest such example is Coandă-1910 aircraft". This is worse than claiming that Coandă built the first jet engine, because it's not only pushing the POV, but arguable, case that "jet engines should be broad in definition so as to include Coandă's" but it's also making the unsupportable implication that Coandă's engine met the narrow, mainstream, fuel-burning definition too.

This editor's behaviour has been disruptive for so long, and so incessantly, that it is harming the project. Others cannot keep up with it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

For any administrator reading this entry please consider to block my account completely or remove it from Wikipedia. Coanda-1910 it is know in the history of aviation as being the first jet-propelled aircraft. This fact cannot be removed by a Sound System specialist like Binksternet from the history books, how much he would like to do so or others supporting him, which are disregarding a series of Wikipedia rules like WP:NPOV,WP:OWNER,WP:SYNTH etc. The mainstream as demonstrated in the Coanda-1910 talk page is against the biased position of Binksternet supported partially by speculations made by Gibbs-Smith in 1960. Regarding the aspect of calling Coanda a liar is a very serious statement which basically is considered Defamation and at least in civilized countries this is basically a crime covered by laws.

For the technical questions:
 * The patent written by Coanda in 1910 described in detail by Antoniu in his latest book explains clearly that is was the first ever invention working on the principles of a modern aircraft air-breathing jet engine: air intake, compressed air in a ducted fan, using the heating agent to increase the pressure before ejecting it a the rear of the device covering basically the definition of jet engine and jet propulsion. Andy is right that the phrase "jet engine" acquired in time a different meaning as explained by English language linguists, but such change of meaning cannot remove the technical facts described hundred years ago. As well you must keep in mind that in the Latin family of languages phrase "jet engine" did not changed it's meaning in time especially in the pure technical sense as it was explained in the talk page.

Regarding the disruptions, the historical information regarding the Coanda-1910 was started basically in a coordinated xenophobic attack against Romanian aviation history ( ignored by most of the administrators for some reason ) from the account Romaniantruths.--Lsorin (talk) 13:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Coanda never described the Coanda-1910 flying as being intentional or officially observed, which is completely agreed by his scholars (Stine, Antoniu) as not being a controlled flying and not repeatable as it is required for official endorsement. But to consider that the plane was not even tested after the constructor payed a fortune to build it is ridiculous as a statement.


 * I consider Coandă's achieved invention and flight (or lack of) to be less important than his ideas: If he had the idea for the jet engine at this time, that would be highly significant. As I've listed in the past, there are many workers in the field (6 of them there, one from 1908) who discussed varieties of motorjet. Yet if we take the patent you've just cited as representing Coandă's work, or even better the nice clear image that you added recently, we see a sophisticated ducted fan (certainly in advance of anyone else's work at this time), but still just a fan without fuel injection.
 * It is wrong to repeatedly push this invention (with one definition of "jet") into an article immediately following a contradictory definition of jet.
 * If you're accusing me of anti-Romanian xenophobia, I'd remind you again that what I'd really rather be doing would be writing up Constantinesco's torque converter (a Romanian invention that really was novel and ahead of anything in Western Europe), not pushing back the same old claims from you. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Andy are you an aviation expert of historian? What you just wrote about is pure synthesis against Wikipedia policies. My two cents as a non-specialist: The picture shows definitely an a centrifugal air compressor placed in a duct. The ducted fan is a ducted propeller. As well the picture is not showing the injector and the burners added by Coanda later, after the exhibition as described and drawn by him later but not claimed in the same patent. Though the principle of increasing the pressure and mass of ejected fluid, with the help of "heating agent" is clearly described in the text. The lack of evidence to prove that the plane did not fly, leaves Aeroclub de France, City Hall of Paris, Coanda's, Houart's statements endorsed by Gabriel Voisin a witness to the flight, standing. As well Coanda never declared that he invented the turbojet arguably invented by Whittle and Von Ohain ( if we forget in a biased way of course, the axial compressor turbojet patent of Maxime Guillaume in 1921!).
 * So what is the definition of Jet Engine? I already stated, that according to Wikipedia's "definition", Coanda's engine was definitely working according to The Third Law of Newton.
 * I'm not accusing you of anything, as you have been one of the editors watching over this article before, what personally I consider, a xenophobic attack. I just pointed out that for instance in France or Romania the defamation of statements endorsed by the state it is considered a crime. How would be to say that JFK, which is the name of a main airport in US John F. Kennedy International Airport, it is basically the name of a liar?--Lsorin (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Uninvolved editor (or not so much) chiming in: is this not a content dispute that can only be resolved by a RFC from an independent aviation expert/historian? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC).
 * No, Bzuk, Andy Dingley brought it here because it has become an editor behavior problem. The editor Lsorin has not been able to develop a consensus and instead has observed consensus develop against him. He continues to act against consensus but in a confused way, unable to decide whether the Coanda-1910 had fuel injection or not, unable to decide whether the definition of aviation jet engine should be changed to include no fuel burnt in the air stream. This is an editor who is pushing a POV, one that by any method puts the Coanda-1910 as the first jet plane. Binksternet (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This isn't a technical issue, and shouldn't be allowed to develop into one, because that's obviously outside the scope of WP:AN.
 * There's no question that Coandă invented something interesting, that this something deserves coverage, and that it deserves coverage under History of the jet engine because it's so often described as being "a jet engine" (however loosely or even incorrectly) and also because an encyclopedia should correct misunderstandings as much as explain new material.
 * However there comes a point when we have to agree on working definitions for terms, and then to abide by that agreement within our edits. Otherwise we can make no progress at all, and we build an encyclopedia that's self-contradictory. This is also the point where we manage to nail down the technical grey areas into points that make a yardstick by which to judge edits: points which are still technical, but hopefully now so narrow that a Popular Mechanics reader can understand them in a few minutes (rather than the months of research that have already gone into this article).
 * The precise meaning of "jet engine" (as a label) that we want to use is less important. Because it's so problematic, it has already become much less useful. Arguing over the way in which we will use the term is a rather pointless exercise - the term is just imprecise, no point in continuing to argue that it isn't. However there is still a concept that we do need to keep consistent, or else we lose meaning. That concept needs definition where we use it (i.e. are we including squid as jet engines or not), and the scope of that definition isn't likely to be held consistent across the encyclopedia.
 * In the article on jet engine, Lsorin's edit placed (as quoted above) the Coandă claim, which describes an engine that doesn't burn fuel in its duct, immediately after a sentence that said "jet engines burn fuel in their duct". That's a contradiction within the space of a paragraph - just not a good encyclopedic edit.
 * There is still no evidence that the Coandă burned fuel in the duct (the cited patent is clear here, as are the other sources). Lsorin's repeated arguments from authority that &lt;foo> said it was a jet engine, and therefore the implication is that it also had jet engine behaviours, don't demonstrate otherwise. To place the claim into this paragraph in such a way (I don't dispute the aircraft's grounds for inclusion, merely the phrasing) can only be seen as an attempt at proof by association: listing the Coandă alongside fuel-burning jet engines describes it, falsely, as a jet engine of such a type.
 * Lsorin still refuses to address the issue here: It's not a fuel burning engine, the edit lists it as such, therefore a bad edit. That's as simple as we can reduce the technical issue, and I think it's adequate to demonstrate that this is a non-neutral claim (and with months of history and blocks behind it, a serious one). He is quick to attack the technical competence of other editors, but howlers like "the principle of increasing the [...] mass of ejected fluid [by heating]" should be picked up by schoolkids, and yet these are a regular feature of his discussions. Whatever the grey technical areas still are, I'm generous to accept a vague addition to an article (neutrally worded, naturally), but some of these edits, like this one, have gone beyond grey or unproven into the clearly incorrect and agenda-pushing. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This  's that you used in the description above, are all scholars of Coanda ( Antoniu wrote a monograph of Henry Coanda with the best in existence bibliography ) and as per Wikipedia rules this are the best and most reputable authoritative sources available. So how can any editor from this Wikipedia world, can be more right then those 's?
 * And for Binksternet about the behavior in Wikipedia. I initiate the consensus build up several times in the discussions ( please check the talk archives)! But always was ignored by Binksternet. Though Binksternet used voting several times, which is |polls against the Wikipedia policies. So I leave to the Admin's to decide who's behavior is to be questioned!--Lsorin (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * &mdash; Although the user's been blocked for these types of edits, from what I can tell so far the user has only made one recent revert across a couple of articles. That said, you don't have to necessarily violate the three revert rule in order for edits to be considered disruptive or part of an ongoing edit war. Still, I would strongly suggest that Lsorin stick to a voluntary one-revert guideline, as it would seem that there's consensus against his edits, but not yet to the point where making a just single revert is disruptive&mdash;it seems there's some disagreement. If you have a dispute over the content of a page, please seek any number of options for dispute resolution, including using the article's talk page. -- slakr \ talk / 17:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I am disappointed that this has been declined, as the editor now sees it as vindication that he was technically correct all along. Two hours after it was declined, they reverted the edit in question with the summary, "Edit Warning was rejected."  Since then they've been on a roll, re-applying these same claims to a range of articles. They left it with jet engine claiming that the Coandă-1910 was the first jet engined aircraft, with fuel burning in a duct, to fly in 1910: three claims that have absolutely no place there. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Andy you started this vendetta, against Coandă by calling him a liar: Coandă simply lied. Please give us a single piece of evidence confirming your statement, which can be considered strait as defamation to the memory of a celebrated inventor. Basically your reverts can be considered as vandalism, as you are simply trying to remove from the history of aviation, facts stated by aviation historians like Boyne, Gunston and others.
 * And one more aspect. How do you see this as vindication when, before the result I already thank you in my talk page?--Lsorin (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Since the first report, the user's clearly hinged on 3RR once again, so it's obvious that is intent on edit warring over whatever the disagreement is. -- slakr  \ talk / 17:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

== User:Iamhere786 reported by Active  Banana   (bananaphone  (Result: 24 hours) ==

Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 14:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 14:48, 15 December 2010  (edit summary: "revert vandalism by 221.120.249.18 (talk)")
 * 2) 17:51, 15 December 2010  (edit summary: "Revert vandalism by 119.153.28.130 (talk)")
 * 3) 18:18, 15 December 2010  (edit summary: "Revert Vandalism by 119.153.28.130 (talk)")
 * 4) 18:24, 15 December 2010  (edit summary: "Revert vandalism by 119.153.28.130 (talk)")
 * 5) 18:28, 15 December 2010  (edit summary: "Revert Vandalism by 119.153.28.130 (talk) from Islamabad, Pakistan, Stop the edit war")
 * 6) 20:15, 15 December 2010  (edit summary: "Revert vandalism by 203.99.184.12 (talk) from Islamabad, Pakistan")
 * 7) 21:09, 15 December 2010  (edit summary: "its in continuation of already mentioned thing, so there is no question of it being irrelevent, and its a link itself, doesn't need any source")
 * 8) 04:43, 16 December 2010  (edit summary: "its in continuation of already mentioned thing, so there is no question of it being irrelevent, and its a link itself, doesn't need any source")
 * 9) 13:41, 16 December 2010  (edit summary: "Reverted vandalism by 119.153.109.227 (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here
 * Diff of comment where the user has acknowledged recieving the warning
 * Diff of notification of this discussion

The user continues in a POV push to insert "Pakistani terrorist" as a descriptor into an article about a film when the source does not make any mention of the nationality of the individuals involved. The user is also attempting to identify the removal of this non-relavant and non supported claim as "vandalism". A number of other editors and IPS are involved and locking the page may also be necessary.Active Banana    (bananaphone  14:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC) —Active  Banana    (bananaphone  14:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 *   Wifione    <sub style="font-size: 60%">....... <sup style="margin-left:-3ex"> Leave a message  15:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Ekimiheart - editwarring and failing to communicate (Result: blocked 24 hours)
has inserted the same edit four times into the article Evolutionary psychology today and once yesterday, while failing to repond to arguments by the users reverting in editsummaries, on the article talkpage or on their talkpage. It seems he needs some motivation to engage in communication.·Maunus· ƛ · 20:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looie496 (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Pm master reported by User:Histree (Result: 24h each)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scope_creep&oldid=402752218


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scope_creep&diff=402699285&oldid=402691967 with no clear reason
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scope_creep&diff=402734120&oldid=402728250
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scope_creep&diff=402752218&oldid=402741296
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scope_creep&curid=398415&diff=402755428&oldid=402753908

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pm_master&diff=prev&oldid=402753244

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scope_creep&diff=prev&oldid=402753908 & http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pm_master&diff=next&oldid=402754794 & I am about to open an rfc

Comments: also accusations of bad faith Histree (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just locked the article and was going to avoid blocking at this time. Belt and suspenders? :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

User:MUCHERS22 reported by User:Brewcrewer (Result: Indef)
Page: /  /

User being reported:

Time reported: 23:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
 * Ehud Barak
 * 1) 16:55, 13 December 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 402145084 by Noon (talk) Please no revert war.")
 * 2) 19:34, 13 December 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 402191748 by Noon (talk) No revert war, use the discussion page before removing my adds.")
 * 3) 09:11, 14 December 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 402235647 by Noon (talk) Please stop this revert war, see your discussion page.")
 * 4) 13:34, 15 December 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 402411431 by Brewcrewer (talk) Well its his words. No revert war please, use the disucussion page.")
 * 5) 09:13, 16 December 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 402639968 by Plot Spoiler (talk) Use the discussion page, no rv war please.")
 * 6) 14:02, 16 December 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 402677807 by 79.176.155.68 (talk)Excuse me but I have told you to use the discussion page, you cant just remove stuff")


 * Benjamin Netanyahu
 * 1) 21:33, 13 December 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 402202076 by Hertz1888 (talk) Well there are many sources on this. I added another to the article.")
 * 2) 13:35, 15 December 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 402229237 by Noon (talk) I reached out to you on your page but you ignored my call, please no revert war.")
 * 3) 09:13, 16 December 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 402639893 by Plot Spoiler (talk) Use the dicussion page, no rv war please.")
 * 4) 14:01, 16 December 2010  (edit summary: "/* Remarks about the United States */  Thanks, I didnt notice that, although that he wrecked the oslo peace process arent written out right?")


 * U.S. sanctions against Iran
 * 1) 10:02, 5 December 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 400611068 by NPguy (talk) Editing some dubious stuff. FYI EU-3 failed to follow the agreement with Iran, dont put this on Iran")
 * 2) 08:26,  8 December 2010  (edit summary: "/* Ahmadinejad government */  I think this should be pointed out because the previous version portray that it was Iran that all of a sudden just began to enrich again which is not the case, thank you!")
 * 3) 09:06,  9 December 2010  (edit summary: "1.The suspension wasnt made by "reformistS" but by Khamenei 2. EU3 talks failed whe pushed for permanent suspension, which the agreement in 2003 forbade EU3 to do or push.")
 * 4) 08:58, 10 December 2010  (edit summary: "Discuss on talk page, no revert war.")
 * 5) 09:27, 11 December 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 401620992 by NPguy (talk) Discuss on talk page, no revert war please.")
 * 6) 00:42, 12 December 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 401806785 by Plot Spoiler (talk) What source? POV, please no revert war.")

This is an edit-warring report, not a 3RR report. MUCHERS22 is an habitual edit-warrior; in his short Wikipedia history, he has been blocked 24 hours, 1 week, 1 month, 1 month again, and 60 days for edit-warring, as his block log shows. On December 5, he came back from a 60 day block, and immediately began reverting. As the examples above show, he's more careful now than before, and avoids explicitly breaking 3RR on each individual article. Still, he's mostly edit-warred, and in the past 3 days alone has reverted 10 times. Somewhat ironically, even as he repeatedly reverts, he asks others (in his edit summaries) not to "revert war".  brew crewer  (yada, yada) 23:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment:


 * Question - Should the first two of these be included under the 1RR remedies for articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict? That would slow down their edit warring at least. ← George <small style="color:#dc143c;">talk 01:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Indefinite block, because it seems this editor is an habitual edit warrior. Just a few days after the expiry of a two-month block, they're straight back at it. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   04:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Willrocks10 reported by User:ThePaintedOne (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

First time reporting, sorry if my formatting is a bit off.

Last 'clean' version is here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woking&oldid=402303782

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

This is where they started putting in the incorrect info, which I later took out. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woking&action=historysubmit&diff=402358811&oldid=402303782

Added a second time http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woking&diff=next&oldid=402380150

Added a third time http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woking&diff=next&oldid=402566738

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWoking&action=historysubmit&diff=402684604&oldid=384008359

(this is only recent, I added this as an attempt to avoid escalation, but the user has consistently ignored talk page advice on other articles and is engaging in other forms of disruptive editing, hence coming here) Comments:

Willrocks10 has created an article, List of tallest buildings in Woking, which I have nominated for deletion here Articles_for_deletion/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Woking.

They have also attempted to add Woking to the page List of tallest buildings by United Kingdom settlement. That page has inclusion criteria of 100k population, which they have tried to drop to 90k, then increase the population of Woking on the Woking article to 92k. The higher number is for the borough, which has a seperate article that already shows this number. I've reverted this three times now, but am worried I'll fall foul of 3RR if I continue.

Along the way they have repeatedly deleted AfD tags, deleted other users comments on the AfD page, and most recently blanked the entire AfD page.

I'm pretty sure this is a young, new user who is mostly acting in ignorance. I've tried to reach out to them on the talk pages, and their own talk page, but am not getting any response other than increasingly disruptive editing.

Related to this is the IP user 92.15.71.216 who I am pretty sure is the same person, plus user Pbl1998. I initially thought they were the same person too, as they tend to edit at the same time on the same articles. But they have posted comments to the effect that they are a friend of Willrocks10 and working with them on these articles.

Not wanting to bite the newcomers, I didn't really want to bring it to admins as they appear to be mostly acting in ignorance rather than malice. I was hoping to just point some other editors at them to try and help steer them in the right direction, possibly using the 3PO. But with the increasingly deliberate vandalism edits having now escalated to page blanking, and being concerned that I'll end up edit warring myself if I'm not careful, I think an intervention may be required. Appologies if there is more appropriate forums to raise this sort of issue.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Things seem to have calmed down some, so not sure Admin is needed. If anyone is feeling charitable they might want to help guide the newbie, but there's no active edit war at the moment to deal with.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Note, all the current disruption is happening on the AfD page.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Is disruptive though: does not listen to any advice and continues to illegitimately revert edits of others, despite warnings, as here. Language is also not the most WP:CIVIL. --Elekhh (talk) 11:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they really aren't getting the whole consensus thing having just reverted two more edits on an AfD page. I have a bad feeling about all this.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 12:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sadly they are at it again, deleting other users comments and edit warring. I think an admin needs to take a look at this. Sorry.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Result - 24 hours for removing another editor's comments in Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Woking. This removal came after I had already warned him about this 3RR report. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

User:81.168.20.115 reported by User:Kookoo Star (Result:no action, page already protected)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 16 Dec 2009
 * 08 Jan 2010
 * 21 Sep 2010
 * 02 Dec 2010
 * 03 Dec 2010
 * 08 Dec 2010
 * 08 Dec 2010 #2
 * 09 Dec 2010
 * 16 Dec 2010

Diff of edit warring warning: (three warnings on user's talk page, and notification/link to ANI report, all from the past two weeks)

Link of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This is an edit-warring report, not a 3RR report. Over the past year, IP user 81.168.20.115 has been continuously adding unsourced details to the Bonnie Tyler article, despite several warnings by other editors not to do so (both in the article's edit summaries and several warnings on the IP user's talk page). The issue, concerning worldwide sales, has been discussed at great length on the article's talk page in the past and consensus is that such a detail should not be added to the article without definitive sources. User 81.168.20.115 (obviously an overzealous fan) has refused to enter into any discussion and has failed to respond to any warnings given, adding unsourced details back to the article regardless. The user was reported to ANI a week ago, but the admin who picked up the report failed to take any action and now the IP user has resumed their edit warring activities and still refuses to engage in discussion or adhere to consensus. Every attempt has been made to engage the IP user, on their talk page, in edit summaries made by other users, and of course the ANI report, but they are obviously determined to edit war. Request block. Kookoo Star (talk) 05:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The page has been protected for one month by User:Courcelles. So the IP can't edit the page. Any temporary block (and for an IP, only a temporary block is warranted) would therefore not serve any purpose. Mkativerata (talk) 05:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you do not take action against the IP user as well, particularly after such lengthy and persistent edit warring, they will resume their activities once the page protection expires. Bear in mind they have already been doing this for a year now. Please refer to the previous ANI report you were involved in, Mkativerata. Kookoo Star (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is almost never a case for blocking an IP for longer than a month for a "first offence". The IP has made seemingly ok edits on other articles,(example) so unless the IP now starts to make problematic edits on other articles there's no reason to block. I have left a comprehensive note on the IP's talk page to explain exactly what the issue with his edits was and what he/she can do to argue his/her case while the article is protected. It appears the IPs main problem is with verifiability: perhaps a non-templated message explaining the importance of that policy might help more than unnecessary drastic action? --Mkativerata (talk) 05:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The IP user has repeatedly ignored every message left on their talk page, as well as edit summaries, and even an ANI report about them. Another editor even left a "cookies/welcome a Wikipedia" message on their talk page after the ANI report which directed them to reading the rules about editing. Do you honestly think they will stop their behaviour just because you've asked them to? The IP user has failed to include sources for every single edit they have made throughout their time on Wikipedia (3+ years), and when other editors have removed them, he then begins to edit war. This is a clear pattern of blatant disruptive behaviour. You picked one instance when he corrected a flag icon and you consider him to be a responsible editor? Look at the edit they made to the Deborah Meaden article. It's similar to the ones made to the Bonnie Tyler article in that it is presenting hugely inflated but unsourced claims as fact. We can't page protect every single article they decide to edit. Such behaviour might be expected from newbies, but this is not a newbie and they are obviously doing this purely to amuse themselves. Doing nothing is not the way to handle this. Kookoo Star (talk) 09:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Cecilex reported by User:Stepopen (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: []

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

Comments:

New SPA that continues to add the claim that Manning Bradley is a political prisoner, despite a consensus on the talk page that the sources do not support this claim, as they either do not say this, or are only quoting invidiuals making these claims. Also note that this editor threatened to continue to add this claim to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stepopen (talk • contribs) 06:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * 5th revert . The editor (Cecilex) has also stated that they will not stop readding the content See the above comment stated by Stepopen. Bidgee (talk) 06:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * By . HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

User:GQperfekt10 reported by User:Ted87 (Result: indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1) 08:07, 13 December 2010  (edit summary: "/* New York */")
 * 2) 08:33, 14 December 2010  (edit summary: "/* New York */")
 * 3) 23:47, 16 December 2010  (edit summary: "/* New York */")

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

He's already been banned once for edit warring on the same page. He continued to add the exact same material which violates BLP rules. He tries to be clever by deleting warnings and the block notification left on his talk page. He doesn't even edit other pages. --Ted87 (talk) 08:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

✅ Blocked indefinitely.  Sandstein  11:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

User:96.231.31.238 reported by User:NickCT (Result: Already blocked)
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: User_talk:96.231.31.238

Comments:


 * This falls under WP:BLP with none of the cites supporting the phrasing added to the article by the IP. Active Banana    (bananaphone  16:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * By . HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Δ reported by User:MFIreland (Result: novio)
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:

Comments:


 * A fair use audio file in userspace violates Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#9, and is not subject to any of the listed exemptions. Enforcing NFCC is exempted from the edit warring criteria by Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy. Since this report was filed, has commented out the fair use file. This, it would seem, is an optimal solution as it is easy to activate the link when the article goes live but complies with the restrictions on hosting copyrighted content. If you need to have the box present to test formatting, I recommend temporarily using another file. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

User:$1LENCE D00600D reported by User:xyl_54(Result: move prot)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st move:
 * 2nd move:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: There is currently a move war/edit war on this page User:Silence made a a Bold move, a few days ago, rewriting and moving this page without discussion. I Reverted this and opened a Discussion here User:Silence has now moved the page again. I am referring this here early as this is turning into a move war. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The page has been move protected. I suggest listing the discussion at WP:RM for outside input (happy to do so myself if you like). Mkativerata (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks: I've requested comment from all the other editors of the page (about 7); with any luck that'll resolve it.Xyl 54 (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Shalaqeel reported by Hasteur (talk) (Result:48h)
Page:

User being reported: ,

Time reported: 16:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) Revision as of 15:30, 18 December 2010 No Edit Summary
 * 2) Revision as of 09:46, 18 December 2010 16 revisions that have no edit summary
 * 3) Revision as of 04:25, 18 December 2010 IP address stepping in, again no discussion or summary
 * 4) Revision as of 18:22, 17 December 2010 11 revisions, no edit summaries


 * Diff of warning: here

IP Geolocates to Hyderabad, India where the subject of the article is, and where someone who is claimed to develop the college's website lives (and probably was the user logged out). There is a strong CoI discussion going about the User being associated with and deriving financial incentive from having the article on Wikipedia. I have tried to impress on the user that they really need to stop editing the article.

Note: I know that I am personally on the white hot 3RR line myself while cleaning up this user's disagreement with the view. —Hasteur (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Reverting changes enacted by IP address Still no edit summary on reverting changes IP restores Shalaqeel's perefered version.
 * 2) Reversion to previously preferred version without any edit summary Again the user restores their version and restores violations of the Manual of Style. [[User:Hasteur|Hasteur] (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Result -- 48 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

User:ArnaudMS reported by User:Nahome (result: page protected)
Page:

User being reported:


 * Careful with reporting, you're both at it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 18:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I see that ArnaudMS actually started a talk page thread regarding this 5 days ago that Nahome does not seem to have responded to, he also put the 3rr warning on the users page 6 minutes before filing this request. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#521">u</b><b style="color:#420">n</b><b style="color:#320">☯</b><b style="color:#220">m</b><b style="color:#120">i</b></i> 18:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I must have missed the talk page thread or I would have responded. Sorry for miss-templating, tried to get it all done.  Even if the timing was off at least it's in for discussion now. Can a third party please go in and clean up the disputed article and remove any ureferenced/unverifiable facts.  That would end any dispute very quickly.  Thank you for your time. Nahome (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Nahome is trying to remove the actual referenced est. date of Bambu rolling paper, which has been long since been established and widely accepted. There is no factual evidence to prove otherwise. The only citation provided has been the US trademark registration (1921). The Brand had long since been established before then in Spain and distributed throughout Europe. It has been on the list of list of oldest companies page for years now. If there is a dispute on Bambu's establishment date then why has this not been contested on that page for years now? Why is it that over half the companies on the world oldest company page don't even have a wikipedia page, and their est. date has not even been contested? This makes no sense, and has the feeling of someone trying to slander a brand name for business purposes. As well, my reference to the Bambu restaurant in Spain keeps being deleted. I think someone needs to block Nahome from editing this page for he is disrupting the wikipedia encyclopedia process.

Sincerely, Arnaud — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArnaudMS (talk • contribs) 18:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you need to find that Shoko research paper which can be used as source, without such a source it may well be removed from list of oldest companies(Indeed I see that Nahome has started such a discussion). I would strongly suggest that you cease casting aspersions regarding Nahome's motivation, it simply doesn't matter - the policy is that sources are required. As for the Bambu restaurant, is it relevant to the article, more to the point, has any source made such a connection? In any event, this is not the proper venue for these discussions. You may want to start a thread at WP:Content_noticeboard, please focus on sources and content. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#779">u</b><b style="color:#678">n</b><b style="color:#578">☯</b><b style="color:#478">m</b><b style="color:#378">i</b></i> 18:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I see. Ok, well this will take some time to find out. Until then I see no reason for this to be removed from Bambu's page or the list of oldest company page.. I can remind you that over half the companies on that page do not even have a wiki page, let alone a reference from research firm on the est. date... Only reason I question motive is there is a reference to a Bambu employee on the page which has been created by Nahome. Not one of the other rolling paper company pages discuss the private person/s who owns or controls a brand, nor do many of the other major companies throughout all of wikipedia. I do not see why this is relevant.. An the the reference provided is severely dated. The restaurant is in Alcoy Spain (where Bambu was originally produced) and their name is in the same fancy Bambu script which is used on the Bambu paper. As well on the Menu there is an image of the iconic Bambu spaniard. Is this necessary, you tell me ... You know more about wiki rules then I do ! all the best, and thanks for your time helping with article..--ArnaudMS (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of revert-warring, but it doesn't involve just you two, there are a few IPs engaging in this dispute too. I'm currently requesting the page to be protected so that hopefully there will be a chance to discuss the edits on the talk page. <font color="#0645AD">Minima <font color="#0645AD">c <font color="#0645AD"> (<font color="#0645AD">talk ) 21:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * for one week. Work it out, people. Krakatoa  Katie  00:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Disney09 reported by User:BalticPat22 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1st revert: 05:03, 18 December 2010
 * 2nd revert: 05:22, 18 December 2010
 * 3rd revert: 15:36, 18 December 2010
 * 4th revert: 15:38, 18 December 2010
 * 5th revert: 17:40, 18 December 2010

Comments: I tried to let them know that on their fourth edit, they violated WP:3RR, and suggested to use the talk page to why they are adding this information, but they clearly ignored me when they made the fifth edit: I truly think that they are trying to help, but their continuance in ignoring basic WP policy is gettting frustrating. Partially, the problem is that they are adding info which doesn't pertain to the notability of the article. The other problem is that they are ignoring the fact that they should use the talk page if there is an issue or problem. The fact that they've edited the article five times today without talking about why they keep adding/reverting info is becoming quite trying. Also, judging from the user's talk page, this isn't the first problem they've had with edits. BalticPat22 Patrick (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked by Kww for "chronic guideline violations". <font color="#0645AD">Minima <font color="#0645AD">c <font color="#0645AD"> (<font color="#0645AD">talk ) 21:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Faezdel reported by User:Harout72 (Result: no violation )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 1, 2, 3


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User keeps posting non-existent certification-awards by providing a source which does not contain the information.--Harout72 (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)




 * Read WP:3RR: "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." You're counting each edit, not the sum total. This is a revert by the editor you're reporting.


 * Before you make another AN3 report, be sure you've read and understand the 3RR policy, and follow the directions to make your report (for example, 'previous version reverted to' is singular, meaning there should be one link). Thanks. :-) Krakatoa  Katie  06:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

User:188.163.49.63 reported by User:Glebchik (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:, now

Previous version reverted to:


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

Has been warned. --Glebchik (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * . Range is 188.163.49.0/24. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Quantumor reported by User:Hohum (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is breaking 3RR on two articles. This is my first 3RR report, hopefully I got the format right.


 * Extended time for gross personal attacks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Kenatipo reported by User:Ronz (Result: 6 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: 21:15, 19 December 2010
 * 2nd revert: 21:55, 19 December 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Editing of article is under 1rr sanctions, described Template:Editnotices/Page/Tea_Party_movement

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 21:19, 19 December 2010 (on editor's talk).

Comments:


 * That doesn't look like revert-warring - on one edit he inserted the links, on another he removed the spam link tags. And those were pretty obviously not spam links. It looks like there are other editors on that page whose behavior should probably be examined. Kelly  hi! 22:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * He made two reverts: He added the links in one edit. He reverted my edit to restore them in a second edit. He reverted my edit to tag the links in a third edit. The page is under 1RR sanctions. The editor was notified of WP:ELBURDEN on his talk page. Another editor has agreed that the links are inappropriate, and has chosen to restore tags rather than engaging in the edit-warring . --Ronz (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like the reverts were not the same. There was one for the links and one for the tags you added. I'd recommend engaging on the article talk page about the links, and not using this noticeboard to prevail in a content dispute. Kelly  hi! 22:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't appear understand what a revert is. See WP:3RR. --Ronz (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I've been around a long time, and have done work with controversial articles and those under community sanctions. I know when people are using process against opponents in content disputes. Use dispute resolution, especially the article talk page, instead of places like this. Kelly  hi! 00:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * . User received no warning of 1 revert rule on page until he had stopped editing. Nevertheless, WP:BRD cycle was clearly broken, so a 6 hour block. Also, those by no means appear to be spam links - I agree with Kelly that there is other troublesome behavior on this page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Magog, for taking the circumstances into consideration. This user is fairly new and has been doing a lot of constructive work, I'll be happy to offer them some advice at avoiding these types of landmines. With respect - Kelly  hi! 01:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

User:92.0.196.48 reported by User:Onomatopoetic (Result: 24h)
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:

This was a case of straight-up vandalism instead of revert-warring. Already dealt with at WP:ANI. - Kelly  hi! 00:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * For future reference, please bring blatant vandalism reports go to WP:AIV, not here. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

User:76.65.33.149 reported by - Barek (talk • contribs) - (Result:24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 05:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 04:36, 19 December 2010  (edit summary: "link to related article")
 * 2) 04:20, 20 December 2010  (edit summary: "This absolutely belongs in the lead, people may be confused by the difference between valid criticism and antisemitism, furthermore, if the criticism aren")
 * 3) 04:39, 20 December 2010  (edit summary: "What other problems?  Why doesn't it belong in lead?  There is no reason other than your own point of view.")
 * 4) 05:14, 20 December 2010  (edit summary: "Do not understand relevance of WP:WEIGHT policy in this case.  Yes it belong in the lead, pls discuss on discussion page.")


 * Diff of warning: 04:40, 20 December 2010

—- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no 3RR breach here. But I am going to block the IP for 24 hours for two reasons. First, there is obvious edit-warring across two articles: Anti-semitism and Criticism of Judaism. On the former, the editor inserted a controversial phrase four times (that stated Criticism of Judaism was "valid". The fourth insertion came after an edit-warring warning. On the latter article, the IP on three occasions edited the article in an obvious POV way (stating that circumcision was "cruel" and "genital mutilation". The editor needs to be blocked to (a) prevent immediate continuation of edit-warring and POV pushing; and (b) to understand relevant policies such as WP:EW and WP:NPOV. Mkativerata (talk) 06:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Shankar2001 reported by Chartinael (talk) (Result: both blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 11:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 09:35, 20 December 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 403306477 by 112.135.11.114 (talk)Vandalism, I am reporting at ANI.")
 * 2) 10:44, 20 December 2010  (edit summary: "Brought back to the original version, any radical changes should be discussed on the talk page first.")
 * 3) 10:48, 20 December 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 403330265 by Chartinael (talk) There are radical changes, you alter Tamil dominated Jaffna with Sinhala wordings first.")
 * 4) 10:54, 20 December 2010  (edit summary: "Undid revision 403330569 by Chartinael (talk)Sinhala is spoken as majority, but in Jafnna region Tamil is majority.")


 * ANI by Shankar: here. Addressing Shankar on Talk Page here. All started because of IP edits yesterday.

Chartinael (talk) 11:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Slatersteven reported by User:RepublicanJacobite (Result: prot)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: See below


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Previously blocked for edit warring

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

Comments:

The first revert is a partial revert of this this edit, in which a drive-by NPOV tag without any proper reasoning is placed on the article. The second, third and fourh reverts are obvious reverts, without the need for further explanation. ---<font face="Georgia"> RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 15:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Discussion seems to be moving forward at Talk:British National Party and subheadings, please request unprotection if this resolves. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)